Warp wrote:
> 
>   This is an interesting "our program is better than POV-Ray but it isn't".
> Fancy words, but mostly crap.
> ...
>   Modern my ass.
> 
>   PS: Yes, every time someone makes a stupid claim of something being "better"
> than POV-Ray, I see red.
>   This is not because I think POV-Ray is perfect and the best renderer
> possible in every aspect, but it's because I consider it completely stupid
> to start comparing different renderers and say that one is better than
> the other. Every renderer is good in its own field of expertise and every
> renderer is good for certain things. There's no such a thing as a renderer
> which is better than another renderer.

Another approach is to look at what can be done to improve things. When
a good idea exists, why not implementing it? This is how we got our
patches, and finally why we'll have 3.5 "soon". There is a "bright" side
at benchmarking, but their (mindcraft-like) approach is definitely dumb.

BTW I won't comment their assertion that parallel radiosity is not
possible with POV-Ray ;-)
-- 

      __  __ __  __  _
|  | /  \  /  / |_  /  |/
\/\/ \__/ /_ /_ |__ \_ |\

Post a reply to this message