Christoph Hormann wrote:
> 
> Le Forgeron wrote:
> >
> > Regarding the tesselation patch, the source are now available from
> > http://jgrimbert.free.fr/pov/patch/tessel/index.html
> 
> Nice, but i think the documentation could be improved

Agreed... and then english version should be made by a native (i.e. not me!)
But before investing too much in documentation, it could be better to
first settle down the keyword and syntax (as well as the options).

>, i'm not sure about
> the meaning of various parameters.

I tried to keep the same meanings across the various keyword.
Innocent people are always welcome when writing documentation, because
they come with the natural questions of any newcomers, instead of
the overly complicated explications that "experts" usually exchange (in jargon, 
of course!)
So, Congratulation, you qualify yourself for this task! 
Now, please reorganise your thoughts, and precisely asks all you want to understand.
(Sorry, but the short answer "everything/all" must be detailed and is not allowed per
se).


>  There are also differences between the
> french and english version of the description.

What difference ? The only french/english is in the first table, which only explains
the colour code (mandatory or optional parameter/keyword part).

Aren't you rather confused by the difference between the second and third columns of 
the second table ? 
In the second columns, it is the syntax for using the object/modification just
like a single object (just like you would have typed "sphere { ... }" or
"object { .... }".
In the third columns, it is the syntax for using as part as a mesh, just as 
a replacement to "triangle" or "smooth_triangle".
Main difference is that from second to third, you loose the object modifiers,
and you gain a texture identifier to apply.

Of course, the detail of each page (which is only in french) covers the full
set of options.
Now, may be there is some inconsistencies, which you are welcome to signal too !
 
> I also have a suggestion:
> 
> The 'move < coeff_of_matrix(12) >' could be replaced with a transform.

Transform: I do not know about it, it seems that megapov introduced this element
 (at least with some id), but I do not know it from 3.1g (Or it escapes me, which
is also possible!) and I did not feel from reintegrating that patch too!
(My base was 3.1g, and I'm very reluctant to additions 
[for instance, I'm against all the UV-mapping stuff, but that's another subject/holy
war])

And I mainly introduced 'move' before getting the transformation
(rotate/translate/...) on
warp
(which is a good addition, IMNSHO, even if 3.5 do it another way), so I'm not
even sure 'move' is still usefull as option of 'warp {'.
As a full transformation, 'move {' would really gain from functions, for the time
being,
I found it rather useless as not fancy deformations could be described with a simple
linear matrix.
Moreover, if there was a warp which would do that (is there already ?), there would be
really no need for any 'move' at all.

-- 
Non Sine Numine
http://grimbert.cjb.net/
Etiquette is for those with no breeding;
fashion for those with no taste.

Post a reply to this message