> 1. Everyone knows pov is slow as molasses. Lets just throw out the old
> deprecated C and convert the whole program to ASM. Everyone has Pentiums
now
> anyway.

Thank you for your ideas. Even if we don't like all of them, we can answer
your questions and get a fresh input, as Rune said. There are 2 reasons why
Povray is not written in assembly code:

1)  Pov is meant to be timeless and platform independant. The past has
proven that writing big programs for specific hardware is dangerous because
we don't know what is on the market tomorrow, so the code needs constant
adjustment. Otherwise it needs a full rewrite in just a few years when a new
processor appears. Some commercial developers have the power to handle this,
but Povray is written by many people in their sparetime, over the years. New
coders appear and contribute with something. Some old coders loose interest.
Besides assembly code is harder to understand than C, so new coders will
easily get lost while digging around exsisting code, trying to contribute.

2)  C is not much slower than assembly code these days. The windows version
of POV has been optimised for Pentium / AMD with Intel's compiler.


> 3. I don't know about you guys but this typing crap is hard. It's the new
> millennium and time for a GUI. Lets mimic a proven formula for
productivity
> and intuitiveness. A system that is both easy to use and feature rich. All
> you real CG experts of course know I'm talking about the interface found
in
> Bryce! I mean those arrows are so pretty! How come pov doesn't have pretty
> arrows?

I consider the power of Povray to be the concept of typing graphics, instead
of using the mouse. It's not a limitation but a unique approch to modelling.
It's a dream that comes true for some people, while other people hate it..
Some people don't even give it a chance, and that's a shame.. If you think
it's hard ... well perhaps it's true, but it's not harder than using
graphical modellers.. It's just different.


> 5. Speaking of winamp, isn't about time that pov's UI was skinnable?!

I think that's a good idea.


> 6. CSG would be a lot easier if we had more primitives to work with. Cubes
> and spheres were great in preschool but the world is a complex place and
we
> need complex shapes to describe it. Here are my suggestions for some new
> primitives: Dodecahedron, Buckyball, Leggo brick, Shreck

These shapes can be coded with exsisting primitives and put into a macro.
After this you can easily call them, exactly as if they were "new"
primitives. If you search the Povray newsgroups for Dodecahedron you will
find a cool macro by Uwe Zimmerman. It can make all these kind of 'hedrons
with any number of faces.


> I hope the dev team will take these suggestions to heart when considering
> what features to add to pov4. Thanks for hearing me out!

I'm not one of the developers, but I liked to hear you out! You're right
that Povray can be improved.

Regards,
Hugo

Post a reply to this message