I’m doing a paper on 3D computer graphics and I was wondering if you’d critique my first draft so far. So far I have an intro paragraph, a paragraph explaining spacial coordinate systems, I’ve explained polygons, and now I’m writing the part on CAD. .doc 209 kB
My mom insists on double line spacing and I have some graphics in it so it’s 7 pages so far…:rolleyes:
I like it
Your text is very clear but the first graph of x,y is not, blow up the X and the Y so we can see it. also try to make all the graphics the same scale and key(font and size). You might have to make you’re own. I would add Autocad and Solidworks to your list of cad programs. Looks like a good intro to 3d so far I hope you get an A.
I’ve only read the first page so far but I feel it could do with alot of improvements.
The first page didn’t really stick to a subject, by the time you’ve started talking about one subject you’ve jumped to somthing compleatly differernt and 3-4 lines down to something else too, and often in missleading ways because your making short, brief statments without clarificaion, such as the “3d animation” part :
3D animation programs are what give you your modern 3D computer games, visual effects in movies that would be impossible otherwise and 3D still-image art.
I found that quite confusing, missleading and irrelivant. (how would you draw on a computer: a drawing /graphic app. How would you model on a computer? a modeling app maybe? how would you animate on a computer? an animation program maybe? therefor if a game had animation, it is probable that an animation program was used…) It also doesnt say how a 3d animation program “makes your modern computer game” from what im aware, alot of games dont even need animation done in that sense rather they just have them rigged up, as they have their own 3D engines which of course can handle movement which obviously classes as animation?
by the looks of it everything after that point looks fine though i havnt read that fully but I would say the first page should have some revising, also… what is the purpose the article? The first page seems to be rather unrelated to the rest, as if it should be within some sort of “what is 3D graphics and what can it do for me” and the other pages are “i know what 3d graphics is and have a good understanding but want better depth into how it all works and the basic concepts”
Inside every 30 page double spaced unfocused paper there is a hard-hitting 5 page paper struggling to come out. I don’t want to discourage you from putting down everything you know or can think of in your first draft, but you need to steel yourself to cut huge chunks out of your draft to turn it into a good paper.
You are obviously very excited about 3D CG. This comes through loud and clear in certain phrases and word choices. But after the intro page, we have three pages of cartesian coordinates, and the first illustration in a paper about 3D graphics is a number line we first saw in 4th grade! Booooorrrriiiinnnggg. Seriously, the information on coordinate systems is the sort of thing that should be in an appendix, if you include it at all.
I hope by the end of this paper you are just a little bit more knowledgeable about both computer drafting and animation (and their applications.)
Narrow your topic: you can’t reasonably cover both drafting and animation in a single paper. Why would you want to? Architects are not cartoonists. Pick an audience and speak to that audience. Sometimes it seems you are talking to the general public with a “see how cool this stuff is” message, and sometimes you are talking to someone who is already interested and telling them, “ok, so this is how it works.” Cut the paper into two piles, a “see how cool” pile and a “how it works” pile. Decide which one to go with and toss the other.
Use illustrations. This, for example, is crying out for a simple illustration with lables and arrows pointing to the appropriate spots.
A vertex is the point at which the sides of an angle intersect . An edge is a line drawn between 2 vertices. A polygon is defined as a closed plane figure bounded by three or more edges. The inside region of a polygon is called the face.
and here:
(Imagine that the circle is a hole in a piece of metal, then imagine that you push play-doh through the hole in such a way that it curves into a spring shape.)
or here:
Imagine a CAD model like a clay model of a concept car. The shape has been precision sculpted to be physically accurate, but it isn’t very visually appealing because it is just brown clay. Rendering would be like giving the car model a shiny metallic coat of paint, making the headlights clear, making the side mirrors reflective and giving the car lighting and an environment to reflect.
Why ask readers to imagine this when you can show them? You know what this looks like: you’ve seen it. Your readers haven’t. Why make them work so hard?
Get some good graphics. Draw them yourself or get them from the web. Using copyright material for educational purposes is generally considered fair use. (Be sure to cite your sources, fair use doesn’t mean plagarism.) And I’m sure if you simply asked around here for permission to use images someone else has posted you’d get a favorable response. Focus on a single audience and show people what you are so excited about, and you’ll have a top-notch paper.
Okay, I’m dumping the CAD part and sticking to rendering and animation. I’ll also cut way down on the spatial coordinate system part. New draft to come. Nice critiques people, keep 'em coming.
Could you be more specific, I’m having a hard time trying to restructure this part. It’s meant as an introduction and it seems to flow to me.
I don’t like that you just take five differently styled pictures of axises and put them in one document. Recreate them in gimp/photoshop/inkscape. It will take like twenty minutes, but the document will look much better.
No offense, but if your mom were a typographer, she would tell you to use 1.2 
which is proven best line spacing (best read accuracy, read speed, doesn’t stretch eyes when going from line to line, etc. etc.)
Another thing is, that by displaying Susan in wire mode, you’re not bringing visually the most important information over, that these polygons will create a solid object. Put two Susans next to each other - one solid and one wireframe. Or much better, let Susan look in another direction (looking straight ahead is boring anyway), cut her in half and show the reader, how a solid object is formed from a wireframe.
Since you didn’t wrote, who is your target audience, or what is the purpose of your paper, it’s kind of hard to say anything about the content itself.
I hope I wasn’t too harsh :D.
Will do. I’ve already made several diagrams in Blender since the posted draft, as I have no photo editing skills.:o
I was going to single space the paper, but my mom INSISTED on double line spacing. (She’s reading this over my shoulder and says “It’s easy to correct!”)
Thanks, I’ll take that under advisement. (Actually, maybe a wire on top of the solid would be best…)
I have yet to restructure the first paragraph and I’ll finish writing tomorrow, but here is a new version. .doc 342 kb
Sorry I never noticed your reply originally…
Missleading: The first sentance. I’ve been a member of elysiun for quite some time which is proof that 3D on a typical home computer isn’t “new” - what is you’re definition of new? I would say within the same year… but people have been using blender and other 3D application on a “typical home computer” for many years.
Figures and other statistical information also plays on the concept of “newest use” but it is a very sketchy area and is rather missleading. Your building your artical based on the fact this is a new “hip” thing, but it’s not and will reflect on the quality of the rest of the artical (when I first read that line I didn’t really think you knew what you were on about, all from that one line.).
The artical also seems more relivant for people of intermediate skills, so they will already have a little bit of 3D knowledge and allready know of large 3D communities, bringing up the question on how legit is the information contained in this article… again, all from that first line…
Missleading: terminology: CAD - computer Aidded design is the most common term for CAD in terms of 3D design, not assisted as far as im aware (although it is valid). Infact, my design course back when i was in college asked what CAD ment (in my exam that is). As you can guess, if i were to say C-assisted-D, I may get penalised for that and im pretty sure I would. You need to make clear that it is simply one abbrevation for many terms all related to a similar subject.
I’ve read things that were wrong or missleading before and it’s hard to get rid of your head because it justs “sticks”, if people dont tell you “well infact, CAD also stands for… which is not to be mistaken with…” then CAD = 1 will stay in your head instead of CAD = 1+various other terms… If it wasnt for the fact that I was personally passionate for design, this would have been a major problem for me back in college because the teachers knew fuck all, simply reading from a book and teaching bad concepts on printing and manufacturing that I would have reported them if it wasnt so hard to find the right place to report it… And I know the other kids in the class are now screwed thinking they can simply design an image on a computer (ms publisher) and it’ll magicall print perfectly on a CMYK press like offset lithography. No concept of bleed allowance, trapping, paper ink limits or anything… Hell, I doubt they’ve heard of pantone.
So, I think you’ll get the point now …
As to switching subjects, you went from CAD - uses /benifits - CAD programs - pretty, games, effects, animation - hollywood, opensource/ blender: some advertising of features they probabily wont understand… - gollum photo realistic? (some people have a very stange understanding of the term photorealistic, and i hope it isnt from people claiming gollum is photo realistic ; lowering the standard of photorealistic…)) and all one one page?
Those are all subjects that are somewhat easy to create whole articles based on them. and has nothing in relation to whats comming up on the next pages in terms of what you’ve got. Keep the introduction sweet and specific to whats going to happen in the article. Not jumble things up - It starts off like it’s 3D supermarket and then goes on into a more math /programmer 3D hand book from what i recall from scanning over the other pages.
Have yet to read the new one…
Anything on the new version to say? I have to finish this officially today, but I may continue to polish it for my own sake.