>>
|
No. 687
[Edit]
File
129122633657.jpg
- (935.41KB
, 1000x1270
, bca_20_01_00_480.jpg
)
>>685
i'm not sure. i don't really know autocad but in principle, if you're really good at rendering (and/or have the appropiate ad ons) you should be able to do any model you're required. they key, anyway, in sc. illustration, is coming to terms with the scientist you're working for (i.e. follow all his indications and corrections), to achieve a desirable balance betwen:
1. clarity of lecture and adequacy to the his knowledge of the subject.
2. realism: photographic resemblance to the model (believe or not, this comes in second therm; the priority is to make justice to the theory we're attempting to illustrate)
3. artistic qualities (aesthtetical appealing of the work itself)
normally, even more when one is a newbee, the correcting process starts from the very sketches; hence, traditionally, descriptive drawing skills are required. among less conservative circles, photoshop and digital painting knowldege is now very appreciated (but of course, the drawing basis of the procedure is the same). 3D rendering isn't really exploited yet (at least for works to be printed); but i wouldn't be surprised if this changes in the near future.
|