"Ross" <rli### [at] everestkcnet> wrote in message 
news:421e54f5$1@news.povray.org...
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:421e4414@news.povray.org...
>>
>> "ABX" <abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote in message
>> news:r4gs1193fnk4fpvkoi3vfa4gjpjcij4485@4ax.com...
>> > On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:50:37 -0000, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>> >> It should be called "POVONLYCOMP"!
>> >
>> > Let me just quote invitation message for POVCOMP: "The aim of POVCOMP
> 2004
>> > is
>> > to show the full potential of POV-Ray."
>>
>>   Then I was right. So why entice 'other' povray users, ABX? Numbers
> maybe?
>> Sorry ABX, but I am pissed with this - and if anyone thinks it's "sour
>> grapes", you're SO wrong. I want to learn POV the way *I* want to learn
> it,
>> and use it. That's what it's there for. To use.
>>
>>  ~Steve~
>>
>>
>> >
>> > ABX
>>
>
> I'm pretty sure that somewhere in the contest guidelines, ah found it...
>
> [quote]
> Positive: detailed selfmade models, realistic algorithmically generated
> stuff like trees, plants, cloth, etc.
> Special focus on how much is self made and what scene elements are based 
> on
> 3rd party models.
> [end quote]

    Ross, no third party models were used in my image. They were all mine. 
Around 150+ made in Wings.


>
> 3rd party models, and 3rd party modellers are entirely different. You hit
> the "special focus on how much is self made", but you missed the
> "algorithmically generated", judging by your description in this thread.

  No, self made in six weeks, not five months, (see below this). I'd like to 
see the same (close) resulting image made in pov using 'algorithmically 
generated'  pov code.


> Which image is yours though? I was searching the pages for "Steve" and
> didn't find anything.

   It's this if you didn't find it. Search: Pov, "Immenent"

   Still can't find it? I missed the deadline by minutes in the end, ( I 
tried, literally), but to no avail, ask the comp compilers.


>
> "full potential of povray." doing something entirely in CSG doesn't 
> explore
> the full potential one bit (i agree with you here). Neither does using all
> mesh models, however the ability to use 3rd party models is a capability 
> of
> POV.
> While i think you have a right to be upset at the judges bias towards
> non-mesh models, i think it's a bit overly dramatic. Still, I was sort of
> surprised by their bluntness in this area.

    Then I'm right with what I said.


>
> I was going to say, "Look at 'Victoria's World'. It uses non-pov things
> pretty extensively and got 3rd place", then i noticed this comment 
> basically
> saying, "It would never win because it used so many things not directly 
> made
> in POV." So i guess, the more I talk, the more i'm siding with you.

    Thank you. Don't be afraid to talk, some people here use PoV, (like me), 
for a hobby, but then, something worthwhile comes along, and you, me, 
(unselfishly) feel that you want to give your best with what you've learnt 
with ANYTHING related to POV.


>
> [quote]
> The detail level is extremely high and there is good use made of POV-Ray's
> features, but the predominant use of external models (e.g. Victoria, the
> Dosch houses, Chris Colefax's Lens Effects include, Gilles Tran's 
> MakeGrass)
> prevented it from making it further in my mind.
> [quote]

    Well, obviously, that wasn't my image, but that's what would have been 
said about my image after a lot of hard work. So, back to my point. Why 
entice PoVRay users, (generally), to enter this contest if it was worthless 
to the external modeler?

  Why did so many good CG artists enter this comp knowing that external 
models would fare badly?

   ~Steve~


>
>