Program ended abnormally on 06/09/2003 14:00, Due to a catastrophic Tim
Nikias v2.0 error:

> And why is that? I guess, the main part is this:
> IF you have the money for more popular programs,
> you get easy access to more diverse capabilities
> and faster processing of images (as the popular
> programs use 3D-Acceleration Hardware, which
> POV-Ray can't use). 

Huh?  They might use the 3-D acceleration techniques found in your video card to 
display their GUI and stuff, but rendering still happens in the CPU, AFAIK.


Thus, you can spit more
> images in shorter time, and thus, the production
> phase isn't as long as with POV-Ray (just think
> about Radiosity and Photons, focal blur, especially
> fine-tuning those).

Riiiiight.  Radiosity and photons aren't even possible without rendering the 
image in multple passes with most of those expensive packages.

  I might be wrong about the
> production phase being shorter, but that would be
> due to more capabalities, better modelling control
> than via script etc.

Modellers exist for POV.

> Lets face it, POV-Ray is neat and free, its the
> best image-processing "engine" I've seen so far, but
> it has some drawbacks (e.g. scripting interface) which
> just can't compete with popular programs.
> 

YMMV.  I've tried a few of the other packages, and still prefer POV.

> Aside of all that, I always wonder how many people
> posting their stuff actually *own* the programs, rather
> than just "use" them... Can't happen with POV-Ray! :-)
> 

:)

> Regards,
> Tim
> 

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   videotron.ca  */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message