Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> So I'll say this. I thought that fact that one of the judges would 
> repeatedly use the comments section as a soapbox for this ridiculous 
> bias of his was in extremely poor form.  I was more than a little 
> shocked that such bias was represented on the judging panel at all, and 
> even more so that these petty-minded opinions were allowed to see the 
> light of day.  For me it is extremely disheartening, not in the least 
> because I enjoy "pure" csg extremely, and now actually find it hard to 
> use because this "issue" has been so stupidly politicized.  These 
> comments are, in my opinion, low-minded, retrograd, and do not reflect 
> the spirit of POV-Ray.

  The comments only reflected the goal of the competition.

  As I have already said in another article, this was a competition to
show the capabilities of POV-Ray, not a competition to show how POV-Ray
can project meshes onto the screen.

  How does it, in your opinion, show the full potential of POV-Ray if
an entire scene is modelled and created in a third-party tool, textures
are created in photoshop, everything is exported to POV-Ray meshes
and the POV-Ray is just used to project those meshes to screen with
some basic lighting effects?

  The comments basically say "yes, it's a great image, but it's not
better than the winner, and by the way, we were not really looking
for who can use POV-Ray as a mesh renderer, we were looking for who
can use POV-Ray as a raytracer with tons of features".

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -