Warp wrote:
> Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> 
>>>  As I have already said in another article, this was a competition to
>>>show the capabilities of POV-Ray, 
> 

You are welcome to your interpretation of this of course, but some 
broader interpretations may alos be valid.

> 
>>Which you associate exclusively with CSG
> 
> 
>   You seem to have the same obsession as St. has.

I see myself as standing beside St., yes, though I don't agree with all 
he is saying.



> 
>   Since composing the entire scene with third-party models was considered
> negative (because it basically uses just one single POV-Ray feature:
> mesh rendering), you now are completely convinced that meshes were
> completely forbidden and that if an entry used even one single mesh
> it would have not won.

No I believe one judge in a few comments indulged in proselytizing 
against the viability of mesh modeling.  And that that is dangerous 
because when stated by an official, can induce a generalized set of 
values and preferences.


> 
>   You also seem to know better what I mean by "to show the capabilities
> of POV-Ray" than I do, and seemingly no amount of explaining will
> convince you otherwise.
> 

This more than anything confirms my opinion of the situation.


>   Are you calling me a liar too?
> 
Not sure where that came from but my intentions here are simply to raise 
  awareness I denote as articulately as I possibly can how statements 
can reverbiate.


> 
>>not a competition to show how POV-Ray
>>
>>>can project meshes onto the screen.
> 
> 
>>only how it can project primitives onto the screen
> 
> 
>   Uh? You call algorithmic programming, isosurface tracing, sphere sweep
> generation, procedural texturing and other features "projecting primitives
> onto the screen"?
>   If so, you have a pretty limited view of what POV-Ray can do.
>

let's remember one of the quotes:
Big plus for creative use of POV-Ray primitives and CSG (instead just 
using cheap meshes).

The point is that it is the commentor who drew a comparison that appears 
limited.


> 
>>How is it, in your opinion, that a mesh, hand-modeled to express 
>>sublties of organic form, say the complexities of the flesh around a 
>>human eye, is in anyway "cheap"
> 
> 
>   Because it shows the power of a third-party modeller program, not the
> power of POV-Ray. It's just a cheap way of getting pretty images generated
> by POV-Ray, using less than 1% of its features. You could as well use
> any other renderer to get the image from the models.

This raises some interesting aspects of the whole promotional dilemma 
because in light of what you say, I am equally unsure that SDL, while a 
unique thing, is really the basket where I'd want to put all of my eggs 
so to speak.  But you are the insider and I am not and that does not 
bear directly on what angered me here anyway.  More helpful to say this. 
  If I understand the intention of your words correctly, in light of a 
desire to see the creative possibilities of sdl as a modeler explored as 
much as possible, the substitution of mesh looks easy or "cheap".  Valid 
to a point, but a couple of things:  The syntax of the comment suggests 
mesh by its nature is always "cheap" not just its use in a contest with 
  prestated preferences.  Also, the reader may not be aware that you 
meant the word in context or have any way of understanding that context. 
  Finally, even when prestated, it really is a bias.


>   The animal shown in the winner image can probably be made in 10 minutes
> with a graphical nurbs modeller by someone experienced. As such it would
> have not shown any talent nor dedication at all. However, using POV-Ray's
> own means to create the figure showed creativeness and talent.
>   And that was just the simplest part of the image. Using isosurfaces
> for the ship was simply awesome. If the entire ship had been a mesh
> created in another program, there wouldn't have been anything impressive
> about it (at least without knowing how exactly it was done; if it was
> done just by moving vertices around with the mouse then there's nothing
> impressive in that; it would have been a "cheap" way of doing it, regardless
> of how long it took to move all the vertices with a mouse).
> 
> 
>>At worst it is proselytizing, even gloating, in light of a known and 
>>inflamed controversy.
> 
> 
>   You are seeing more than there is in the comments.
> 
Again, glad to hear it.  But again the point is, when spoken in an 
official capacity or even in an official context, words should be chosen 
carefully because they are always going to be interpreted at the 
convenience of the audience.  Every manager learns this nasty lesson.