Build Rome
-
Marco: I am still impressed and enjoy the progress of this project. I really think it would benefit from texturing but I realise it would be as much (if not a bigger) job to do properly.
Pichuneke: this game like walkthrough is also exactly what I am planning to achieve (in the long run) with out World Heritage site. Both the visitor centre (as it is today - with the ruins in there) and the reconstructed stuff.
-
[quote="pichuneke"] ... continue working on my roman theatre. I have a problem with those corinthian capitals...[quote]
I don't know if it can help, but I made up a very simplified one for the Pantheon, and I think it looks good ...
The model of the pantheon needs an explanation, it is not as it is, but as it was planned. The king size columns didn't arrive in time, so they had to settle for lower ones, that's why the actual entrance looks a bit squat. This is what it was meant to be.
-
@gaieus said:
Pichuneke: this game like walkthrough is also exactly what I am planning to achieve (in the long run) with out World Heritage site. Both the visitor centre (as it is today - with the ruins in there) and the reconstructed stuff.
P.M. If I can help you let me know, send me a private message.
-
@hepf said:
@pichuneke said:
... continue working on my roman theatre. I have a problem with those corinthian capitals...
@unknownuser said:I don't know if it can help, but I made up a very simplified one for the Pantheon, and I think it looks good ...
The model of the pantheon needs an explanation, it is not as it is, but as it was planned. The king size columns didn't arrive in time, so they had to settle for lower ones, that's why the actual entrance looks a bit squat. This is what it was meant to be.Thanks hepf, I have downloaded it, I may adapt your capitals for the theatre. The game engine needs optimized models, and my original capitals are very complex. Although I believe you don't know about it, if you put a normal or bump map texture over a simplified model, you can simulate a very complex 3D model with a low amount of polygons (in Kerkythea, a game engine...). That's what I am trying to do, but it's slow...
You have an example here: http://www.messiahdesigns.hurm3d.com/images/2d/chariotscene.jpg You haven't started yet to texture your models, it's time consuming but gives you the realistic touch, more detail. As you are studying the urbanism of the ancient Rome, you don't need to reach that level.
-
@pichuneke said:
@gaieus said:
Pichuneke: this game like walkthrough is also exactly what I am planning to achieve (in the long run) with out World Heritage site. Both the visitor centre (as it is today - with the ruins in there) and the reconstructed stuff.
P.M. If I can help you let me know, send me a private message.
Well, currently I am using Lumion to put together very large scale models with lots of buildings. I now allows for stills and movies but a walkthrough kind of export will also be available at a time (as well as some panoramic output which true that gives another kind of experience but can be used to show some things nicely).
We1ll see where we get with it.
-
I do use bump maps, but in Poser. There goes Pichuneke's chariots ...
-
They are not mine. Anyway I am going to start working on something... hepf, I will send you a Private Message later
-
@hepf said:
I don't know if it can help, but I made up a very simplified one for the Pantheon, and I think it looks good ...
lol I'm getting depressed seeing your work being fantastic, and then seeing my crappy work on the Palatine next to it, starting over for the 5th or 6th time.
I really need to convince myself to try not to be too detailed... It would be great to use your corinthian capital in stead of hamernhanks and karlfucious' I found on the warehouse. They're beautiful, but just too big to handle (including the Apollo precinct there are more than 300 columns in the model...). I'm sure you'll say I can, but I always prefer to ask
In any case, I don't think my model will ever get finished and certainly not published anywhere ^^Regards,
Tom aka fluffy -
To Pichuneke and Fluffy82. Of course you can (link my animation or use my capitel). I am not by any means jealous about my work ...
-
I have a rather strange question for all of you...
When you make models, which do you esteem more important? Accuracy or beauty?
Trying to make a model of the Palatine palaces, I just came across a very detailed plan of the remains by Petrignani. I started over for the 5th or 6th time, laying out the ground plan following his measurements (keeping in mind a small error margin and the absence of wall decoration, which adds thickness to the walls as well). But I came to the conclusion that many features which are supposed to be symmetrical really aren't. A couple of centimeters can be corrected without anyone noticing it, but some of the features are between 40cm and 2m out of axis (which is really visible in the model, and hell for constructing the actual walls).It would be easier to ignore any imperfections and make a "perfect" model (at least 1/3 can be made by copying and/or mirroring another part, reducing the file size as well), but it won't be "correct"...
I can't decide on which way I should take, any comments or advice are absolutely welcomeTom
-
@fluffy82 said:
I have a rather strange question for all of you...
When you make models, which do you esteem more important? Accuracy or beauty?
Trying to make a model of the Palatine palaces, I just came across a very detailed plan of the remains by Petrignani. I started over for the 5th or 6th time, laying out the ground plan following his measurements (keeping in mind a small error margin and the absence of wall decoration, which adds thickness to the walls as well). But I came to the conclusion that many features which are supposed to be symmetrical really aren't. A couple of centimeters can be corrected without anyone noticing it, but some of the features are between 40cm and 2m out of axis (which is really visible in the model, and hell for constructing the actual walls).It would be easier to ignore any imperfections and make a "perfect" model (at least 1/3 can be made by copying and/or mirroring another part, reducing the file size as well), but it won't be "correct"...
I can't decide on which way I should take, any comments or advice are absolutely welcomeTom
There is not perfect construction. A small error of few centimetres... I ignore them. Those errors came usually due to a lack of precision when build. But 40 cm, 2 m... there must be important reasons for that. Perhaps the evolution of the building. But I think that's relevant and must be included.
Of course, it's a personal election.
-
I do a lot of things like that, too. As a general rule, when the inaccuracy is not too big - and it is not "intentional" - , you can just use the same measurements. Like in a building where we found that the buttresses vary between ~98 and ~102 centimetres. There are dozens of them and obviously they are all supposed to be the same size. Such small differences do exist even nowadays with some buildings.
-
Ok, thanks!
I already know that the 2m difference is due to re-use of the foundations of an older building, so I'll try to keep that in the model.
One of the papers I have here claims that some of the other differences (between like 40 and 60cm) are due to either minor landslides or the weight of the roof pushing the walls outwards, but they would have been constructed rather "correct". So I could justify correcting those, as well as anything smaller (mostly in decorations, like niches or the width of windows).
Cool, I'll correct the plan and start building. -
And add to all that the fact that a lot of the older plans have drawing and prospection errors. Total stations and GPS are rather recent, and not even those are always used correctly ... I have that sort of problem in the roman villa I am working on, destroyed when Via dei Fori Imperiali was created by Mussolini, in the 1930's. The plan and prospection was made in a hurry, they had just three months to dig and measure, I can't trust the plans the whole way ...
-
And I just found in some nook of my hard disk a column with the capital I posted the other day, here it goes ...
-
@hepf said:
And add to all that the fact that a lot of the older plans have drawing and prospection errors. Total stations and GPS are rather recent, and not even those are always used correctly ... I have that sort of problem in the roman villa I am working on, destroyed when Via dei Fori Imperiali was created by Mussolini, in the 1930's. The plan and prospection was made in a hurry, they had just three months to dig and measure, I can't trust the plans the whole way ...
Yes, that's why I didn't want to just scan a plan from a book and draw over the lines.
Just last week I was finally able to find a copy of Petrignani's measurements. They seem to be quite accurate, a bit too accurate even (hence my problems with off-axis walls etc).
I cross referenced the plan with some less detailed but more recent measurements, like Macdonald and Finsen, and started drawing (leaving out Dutert since only a very small part of his plan seems to be correct...).
The best would be to get a hold of the more recent work of the German Institute of Archaeology (DAINST), but those are impossible to get hold of for an amateur like meI read about the damage they did to ancient remains constructing the Via dei Fori Imperiali... It's a shame, but we can be glad that some pictures and plans have survived, even if they aren't very accurate. I hope they do a better job now while constructing the subway
Thanks for the column by the way, I'm sure it'll be useful.
-
I am trying to figure out what Nero's Domus Transitoria might have looked like. I placed the two villas that I suppose were there at the time. Of the center one with the round room, only the part to the left is known by documents. The part to the right stepping down three levels is a supposition, but a rather logical one, if there were baths and a palestra (gym area) you expect also a residential area. It could only be in that direction, and that's on a steep slope, and a rather unstable one too. The villas almost link with the house of the Domitii, that is known by that crosslike hall, supposedly underground also at the time it was built and used (fresh hall in summer). So now I have to imagine what the above ground building might have looked like if, as is very probable, Nero bought the two villas and somehow welded the whole thing somehow ...
-
Ok, Csaba won't agree, but I wanted to amuse myself some. I centered the whole building around the circular underground hall, the only known element, and I referred to some paintings from Pompei as a reference. So this is my version of the house of the Domitii as refurbished by Nero before the fire. The main point is that the whole thing happens on a hillside.
-
Why would I not agree? Quite interesting concept!
(And though I do not always post/reply, I follow the topic closely)
-
Looks interesting!
Did you get your inspiration partly from the Esquiline wing of the Domus Aurea as well or is it just a coincidence?
(the central square you have put over the remains of the so-called "House of the Domitii" reminds me of the pentagonal court, as well as the peristyle on the higher level; the Esquiline wing's first floor also had this pavilion like structure, according to Laura Fabbrini).
I like the idea where Carandini puts a similar structure between the artificial lake and the vestibule, though I don't really agree with him placing the "coenatio rotunda" there...About the living quarters: there are many remains of neronian times below the Domus Flavia and Augustana. It is almost certain that Nero built a large reception hall where is now the Aula Regia, and the nymphaeum ("baths of Livia") could have been part of a triclinium, the same concept being reproduced on a larger scale by Domitian.
Since the official part of Domitian's Palace is certainly based upon an older neronian lay-out, I like to think that the residential part was as well... Certainly because one of the walls I mentioned earlier, which is 2% out of axis with the rest of the palace, seems to built on foundations older than the rest of the palace, 1st century AD.
I am still working on the late phase of the palace (severan/maxentian), once that is done I plan on doing the early flavian phase and have a shot at what the neronian phase could have been... But that's far future
Advertisement