I think actually my program would have to output each frame of the
animation, but steps 1,2,3 is basically what I was thinking of.  It would
'drive' POV, or for non Windows platforms, it would run a shell command to
do the render.

Hmmm ... although, at first I thought it couldn't just output a .inc file
and then you'd do the render from POV-Ray, as each frame would be pretty
different, I guess it could just calculate the x,y,z locations and rotations
and output those with a big 'if clock==' switch statement in the .inc file.
I was more thinking it would update the positions and write the file out
directly.

i.e.

box { ... translate <...> mass( 1.0 ) initvelocity( xxx) }
would turn into
box { ... translate <...> translate <...> rotate <...> }
or
box { ... translate <...> rotate <...> }

However, the .inc result could be something like
box { ... translate <resultX[cindex], resultY[cindex],resultZ[cindex],
    rotate <...> }

Do you like the idea of comments or new keywords?

I like the general idea if you don't run the pov script through my program,
it would still render, so a #include file that makes 'mass' into a no
operation would be a good idea.

== John ==

"Tim Nikias" <Tim### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:3C1### [at] gmxde...
> In your first post you mentioned something about placing inclusions or
> comment-like instruction for the programm into the POV-File.
>
> What's so wrong with that?
> Another thing is that I don't like the idea of having dozens of files
> floating around my PC to create one animation.
>
> I don't know how to actually create something useful that will work
> fine with POV-Ray. But if the procedure would be as follows, it might
> just be something a lot of people using POV-Ray would agree to:
>
> 1. Write your POV-Script, add comments including physical
>     properties.
> 2. Run the programm and load the POV-File into it. Let it calculate
>     everything required to do the animation of the physical stuff and
>     write it into Include-file, useable by POV
> 3. Add Include-File into original POV-Script and let POV do the
>     trace.
>
> That's something I like and would most probably jump to. If you're in to
> create an external editor for the physics, that'd be fine too. But I
mostly
> like programms that don't require more than the basics.
> If you'd use Moray, things would depend on
> Version of Moray
> Version of POV-Ray
> Version of Physical-Plug-In
> Platform for Moray, POV-Ray
>
> Creating something thats purely based on POV-Ray is way better, I think.
> But perhaps that's just my personal oppinion.
>
> Tim
>

Post a reply to this message