I agree, this isn't news. But I do think it's worth publicizing - I just found out myself a few months ago that WorldEdit has this functionality. WorldEdit's done this for years, e.g. check this project out: http://forum.sk89q.com/threads/fab-a-city-fabulous.556/ - all a JavaScript program.
It does make me smile that this new mod is called "ScriptCraft", as opposed to WorldEdit's old "CraftScript" system: "Now with two words swapped!"
Yes, enough trees together definitely hold up, this model (one of my favorites) is printed at an even smaller scale, 1 mm/block, and the canopy prints fine. The forest has to be pretty dense, though. The default Mineways print size of 2 mm/block is mostly good enough that normal trees are unlikely to snap off. More info here.
Shapeways has a good materials cost chart (I don't work for Shapeways, by the way, I just use them a fair bit). Cost is all by weight (plus a fixed fee per model), so complexity is free. From what I can tell, their markup for labor doesn't seem to be all that much, maybe 50% above "retail" materials, if you had your own ($70k) color 3D printer? I suspect I'm spending someone's venture capital when I make an order, as their prices seem pretty low all in all.
In fact, this particular material is called "sandstone" (really, a gypsum powder glued together, then coated with superglue). It's heavy and a bit cold to the touch, and is definitely bumpy - see this closeup, for example. There are plenty of other materials out there, this just happens to be the one that Shapeways provides that can print with a wide range of colors. That said, they don't have any really great smooth plastic multicolor material available now. Here's an example (excuse my crappy camera phone) showing a much nicer colored result, from an Object Connex 3D printer. Things appear to be rapidly improving in this area - my main wish is "cheaper" at this point.
It turns out that Minecraft trees tend to snap off when 3D printed at that scale. The trunks are usually too thin to stand up to the model cleaning process.
Yeah, I should have said that better. The sad thing is that people see, "$2000 to $2500" and conclude "nope, I couldn't ever afford that myself". So excuse my weaksauce "order by midnight tomorrow" text; how about, "Small models are quite cheap"?
You might be interested in the history of the project, which shows it's what you might expect: guys starts out small with Minecraft, goes into "gotta build it all" mode. Ben didn't have a plan at first, didn't get paid, and did it mostly because it was fun and exciting. From what I can see, no real PR stunt, which is a nice change of pace.
Northwestern University has more female than male undergrads. Oops, my nerd-streak is showing, I shouldn't let the facts get in the way of a good joke.
Wow, fantastic article, thanks! The problem is much worse than I previously thought: search on ICON Group International on Amazon and you'll see 472,237 results! Makes VDM's mere 57,000 (well, between yesterday and today they added 659 titles so far) seem wimpy.
The bot idea of 1-star reviews: yes, I mentioned this idea too, in my original article, linked from the original Slashdot submission. Some nerd somewhere, make it so! Amazon can't possibly complain that you're spamming, considering the target.
Idiot or not, having been ripped off by a Dilbert book on Amazon (turned out to be one of those tiny gift books you see at checkouts, not a real collection - foolish me, I should have read the dimensions of the book, it was right there on Amazon), it does cost time and money to return your book to Amazon for a refund.
VDM Publishing itself specializes in print of demand of various people's theses. Something like a vanity press, but as a bonus the authors don't have to pay anything, and VDM takes 80% of the earnings. These are sometimes weak offerings, and often available to download for free, but the practice itself is nothing out of the ordinary. So VDM Publishing's authors really are authors, but of theses and similar.
Alphascript and Betascript Publishing (and Fastbooks, in German) are the Wikipedia-aggregation publishers, imprints of (i.e., marketing names for) VDM Publishing. They entirely avoid the expense of looking around for theses and approaching authors, instead simply sucking related articles from Wikipedia. The book titles are goofy as a result, there are no authors, but the costs are miniscule. With a pool of a few hundred million unsuspecting customers exposed via Amazon and others, it just takes one out of every thousand to misstep to make for a profitable business, one that basically makes money off of people's ignorance. At least cigarettes offer nicotine in addition to lung cancer. To the people who argue, "well, you should just be aware of the problem", this sounds to me like smug "I'd never get fooled, I'm so smart" blather to me. Would you say the same if you were the one who bought such a book? Maybe you would, maybe you're the type of person who blames themselves for getting conned, but I blame the con man.
Speaking of blather, I'm sad that no one's commented on one of the Betascript "editors" names is Lambert M. Surhone, which the Internet Anagram Server turns into "Blather Summoner" as the first match, a great fit for the products offered. My original article on VDM mentions this and other fine anagrams.
One ray of sunshine is that giving these books 1-star ratings on Amazon does kick them down the lists. For example, I gave 1-star ratings to a number of their so-called books on Transnistria on Amazon. 3 of their books were the top three books listed on this subject on Amazon before I rated them, now they appear further down the list.
As far as other firms go, AbeBooks indeed sells Alphascript Publishing (45333) and Betascript Publishing (953) books. Oddly, they are all the same price (vs. those on Amazon, which appear to be priced by the pound), from a few different shops. Borders, to their credit, does not carry any Alphascript or Betascript books. Barnes and Noble does.
I will say one thing for VDM, they do add a tiny bit of value (beyond the wacked titles) in their choices of covers, e.g. this peculiar one for a book on legal disputes about Harry Potter.
But Unisys credited its exertion of the LZW patent with the creation of the PNG format, and whatever improvements the newer technology brought to bear.
"We haven't evaluated the new recommendation for PNG, and it remains to be seen whether the new version will have an effect on the use of GIF images," said Unisys representative Kristine Grow. "If so, the patent situation will have achieved its purpose, which is to advance technological innovation. So we applaud that."
Yes, and smoking helps your lungs learn to work under difficult conditions, beating your children helps toughen their hides, and driving a Hummer helps innovation in new fuel sources by using up available gasoline faster. It's all good.
I also like how PNG is "the new recommendation" to Unisys, in 2003.
Well, you're right, actually. For example, in 1993 there were already a slew of tools for POV-Ray. I should have said "10th anniversary of the official site", but didn't want to get too long-winded.
A minor point of interest (for true graphics geeks only): you write, "Another issue is the [sic] Gouraud shading is not perspective correct." In algorithmic terms, you're right, original Gouraud shading interpolates in screen space. However, when I was helping to revise the book "Real-Time Rendering" for its second edition, I asked NVIDIA about this (in 2001), whether they interpolated Gouraud in screen space or perspective space. Surprisingly enough, they now interpolate Gouraud shading using perspective correction, just as they do for textures, and so give a better result.
I agree that there were a number of missteps and questionable statements in the original article, unfortunately. It's too bad, as this area of graphics is exciting and much of it not all that hard to explain clearly. Graphics GPUs (and not the article's "VPUs", a term that hasn't caught on outside of ATI) now allow some seriously large programs (e.g. 1024 steps per pass) to operate on each pixel a triangle covers. The graphics hardware pipeline, by using multiple passes, is Turing-complete (and has been for some time), though I recommend against using it for making a spreadsheet program.
My favorite collections of computer graphics algorithms are gathered on the ACM TOG reference pages, here and here. For real-time rendering topics in particular, I strangely enough like my own page (which needs a serious update, though - it's in the pipe).
Thanks for the kind words about the Ray Tracing News. I actually have a new issue ready to go, it's just a matter of converting it to HTML. Tonight, I hope...
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, this isn't news. But I do think it's worth publicizing - I just found out myself a few months ago that WorldEdit has this functionality. WorldEdit's done this for years, e.g. check this project out: http://forum.sk89q.com/threads/fab-a-city-fabulous.556/ - all a JavaScript program.
It does make me smile that this new mod is called "ScriptCraft", as opposed to WorldEdit's old "CraftScript" system: "Now with two words swapped!"
Yes, enough trees together definitely hold up, this model (one of my favorites) is printed at an even smaller scale, 1 mm/block, and the canopy prints fine. The forest has to be pretty dense, though. The default Mineways print size of 2 mm/block is mostly good enough that normal trees are unlikely to snap off. More info here.
Shapeways has a good materials cost chart (I don't work for Shapeways, by the way, I just use them a fair bit). Cost is all by weight (plus a fixed fee per model), so complexity is free. From what I can tell, their markup for labor doesn't seem to be all that much, maybe 50% above "retail" materials, if you had your own ($70k) color 3D printer? I suspect I'm spending someone's venture capital when I make an order, as their prices seem pretty low all in all.
In fact, this particular material is called "sandstone" (really, a gypsum powder glued together, then coated with superglue). It's heavy and a bit cold to the touch, and is definitely bumpy - see this closeup, for example. There are plenty of other materials out there, this just happens to be the one that Shapeways provides that can print with a wide range of colors. That said, they don't have any really great smooth plastic multicolor material available now. Here's an example (excuse my crappy camera phone) showing a much nicer colored result, from an Object Connex 3D printer. Things appear to be rapidly improving in this area - my main wish is "cheaper" at this point.
Right, he used WorldEdit, MCEdit, and Spritecraft, as it says in the caption.
It turns out that Minecraft trees tend to snap off when 3D printed at that scale. The trunks are usually too thin to stand up to the model cleaning process.
Yeah, I should have said that better. The sad thing is that people see, "$2000 to $2500" and conclude "nope, I couldn't ever afford that myself". So excuse my weaksauce "order by midnight tomorrow" text; how about, "Small models are quite cheap"?
You might be interested in the history of the project, which shows it's what you might expect: guys starts out small with Minecraft, goes into "gotta build it all" mode. Ben didn't have a plan at first, didn't get paid, and did it mostly because it was fun and exciting. From what I can see, no real PR stunt, which is a nice change of pace.
Northwestern University has more female than male undergrads. Oops, my nerd-streak is showing, I shouldn't let the facts get in the way of a good joke.
Wow, fantastic article, thanks! The problem is much worse than I previously thought: search on ICON Group International on Amazon and you'll see 472,237 results! Makes VDM's mere 57,000 (well, between yesterday and today they added 659 titles so far) seem wimpy.
The bot idea of 1-star reviews: yes, I mentioned this idea too, in my original article, linked from the original Slashdot submission. Some nerd somewhere, make it so! Amazon can't possibly complain that you're spamming, considering the target.
Idiot or not, having been ripped off by a Dilbert book on Amazon (turned out to be one of those tiny gift books you see at checkouts, not a real collection - foolish me, I should have read the dimensions of the book, it was right there on Amazon), it does cost time and money to return your book to Amazon for a refund.
Good point, to some extent: Barnes and Noble carries Alphascript Publishing books in their online catalog, Borders does not.
VDM Publishing itself specializes in print of demand of various people's theses. Something like a vanity press, but as a bonus the authors don't have to pay anything, and VDM takes 80% of the earnings. These are sometimes weak offerings, and often available to download for free, but the practice itself is nothing out of the ordinary. So VDM Publishing's authors really are authors, but of theses and similar.
Alphascript and Betascript Publishing (and Fastbooks, in German) are the Wikipedia-aggregation publishers, imprints of (i.e., marketing names for) VDM Publishing. They entirely avoid the expense of looking around for theses and approaching authors, instead simply sucking related articles from Wikipedia. The book titles are goofy as a result, there are no authors, but the costs are miniscule. With a pool of a few hundred million unsuspecting customers exposed via Amazon and others, it just takes one out of every thousand to misstep to make for a profitable business, one that basically makes money off of people's ignorance. At least cigarettes offer nicotine in addition to lung cancer. To the people who argue, "well, you should just be aware of the problem", this sounds to me like smug "I'd never get fooled, I'm so smart" blather to me. Would you say the same if you were the one who bought such a book? Maybe you would, maybe you're the type of person who blames themselves for getting conned, but I blame the con man.
Speaking of blather, I'm sad that no one's commented on one of the Betascript "editors" names is Lambert M. Surhone, which the Internet Anagram Server turns into "Blather Summoner" as the first match, a great fit for the products offered. My original article on VDM mentions this and other fine anagrams.
One ray of sunshine is that giving these books 1-star ratings on Amazon does kick them down the lists. For example, I gave 1-star ratings to a number of their so-called books on Transnistria on Amazon. 3 of their books were the top three books listed on this subject on Amazon before I rated them, now they appear further down the list.
As far as other firms go, AbeBooks indeed sells Alphascript Publishing (45333) and Betascript Publishing (953) books. Oddly, they are all the same price (vs. those on Amazon, which appear to be priced by the pound), from a few different shops. Borders, to their credit, does not carry any Alphascript or Betascript books. Barnes and Noble does.
I will say one thing for VDM, they do add a tiny bit of value (beyond the wacked titles) in their choices of covers, e.g. this peculiar one for a book on legal disputes about Harry Potter.
Yes, and smoking helps your lungs learn to work under difficult conditions, beating your children helps toughen their hides, and driving a Hummer helps innovation in new fuel sources by using up available gasoline faster. It's all good.
I also like how PNG is "the new recommendation" to Unisys, in 2003.
Well, you're right, actually. For example, in 1993 there were already a slew of tools for POV-Ray. I should have said "10th anniversary of the official site", but didn't want to get too long-winded.
A minor point of interest (for true graphics geeks only): you write, "Another issue is the [sic] Gouraud shading is not perspective correct." In algorithmic terms, you're right, original Gouraud shading interpolates in screen space. However, when I was helping to revise the book "Real-Time Rendering" for its second edition, I asked NVIDIA about this (in 2001), whether they interpolated Gouraud in screen space or perspective space. Surprisingly enough, they now interpolate Gouraud shading using perspective correction, just as they do for textures, and so give a better result.
I agree that there were a number of missteps and questionable statements in the original article, unfortunately. It's too bad, as this area of graphics is exciting and much of it not all that hard to explain clearly. Graphics GPUs (and not the article's "VPUs", a term that hasn't caught on outside of ATI) now allow some seriously large programs (e.g. 1024 steps per pass) to operate on each pixel a triangle covers. The graphics hardware pipeline, by using multiple passes, is Turing-complete (and has been for some time), though I recommend against using it for making a spreadsheet program.
Thanks for the kind words about the Ray Tracing News. I actually have a new issue ready to go, it's just a matter of converting it to HTML. Tonight, I hope...
- Eric