"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:421f14ec@news.povray.org...
> St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>> >  The goal of the competition was to show what POV-Ray is capable of.
>
>>    "AS A RENDERER". Get it yet?
>
>  Yes, as a renderer which supports things like isosurfaces, spheresweeps,
> CSG of any solid primitives, procedural textures, algorithmical
> programming etc.
>  Projecting a bunch of meshes to the screen is not showing what POV-Ray
> is really capable of.

    Then what was the point of allowing modellers at all if a "bunch of 
meshes" on the screen is NOT going to have a chance of winning? If this 
wasn't about 'art' and rendering with PoV-Ray, then what was it about?


>
>>      The main goal of povcomp was promotion in a 'pov only' way.
>
>  You clearly have an obsession with this "pov only" thing. No matter
> how many times you are told that imported models are ok (as long as
> the entire scene does not consist of them) and how an image with
> some imported models could have won, you still repeat this "pov only"
> thing over and over like a parrot.
>  The winner image just happened not to have any imported models at
> all. So what? If for example a fish would have been modelled in Wings,
> do you think that would have dropped the image from first place? If
> you think "yes", then you are delusional.
>
>> >  However, regardless of that, and believe or not, that was not the main
>> > reason for choosing The Last Guardian as winner. It was simply, in the
>> > opinion of most judges, the best image. Even most of the judges not
>> > using POV-Ray had this opinion.
>
>>    And I agree, undoubtedly. However, I will still say that I have seen 
>> as
>> good in the IRTC. Don't try to talk me down Warp.
>
>  You are not making any sense here. I don't understand what you mean.

   Without risk of getting personal, you are talking down to me as though 
you are some kind of elevated level above me. You are not. You are on the 
same level as me and anyone else here.


>
>  What do you mean by "I will still say that I have sen as good in the
> IRTC"? Firstly you haven't even mentioned IRTC before this, and secondly
> I don't understand what you mean by that. As good as what? And what does
> that have to do with anything?

    Ok, what was "ground-breaking" in this contest? Was there *anything* 
"ground-breaking" at all? No. That was one of the criteria of even entering 
the contest, and yet, it wasn't there in my opinion.



>
>> >  Not true. If you had made a definitely better image than The Last
>> > Guardian, you would have won.
>
>>      BS, and you know it.
>
>  Ah, I didn't realize you were part of the judging team and that you
> know what were the principles by which the images were judged. In fact,
> you know them better than me. Perhaps I was part of a different judging
> team?
>
>  You are calling me a liar. Is that really what you want?

     I'm not calling *anyone* a liar. If you lied to me, and I knew it, THEN 
I'd call you a liar - no problem, so please quit it with the 'lying' facade. 
Heck, Warp, can't you see what my real problem with this whole thing is? It 
was judged by *some* people that in my opinion shouldn't have been judges. 
For instance, what qualified you as a judge? Are you an artist? What media 
do you use for applying your art, and what type of canvas? None? PoV only? 
Or do you use external modellers too? My point is that I am no more a judge 
than you are.

   If it was me, I would have asked some of the *best* CG artists out there, 
(with whatever tools *they* use), very nicely if they would like to be a 
judge, and wouldn't have *anyone* from PoV-Ray itself - someone 'neutral'. 
It's a well known fact that this happens all the time with any competition 
in the public domain.



>
>> the competition would have been very hard against superb
>> > images using more of POV-Ray's features, but the main judging principle
>> > was still how the image looks. The method of production was only
>> > secondary.
>
>>   Exactly.
>
>  So you agree with me now? Now you do agree that your image could have
> won if it was clearly superior to the other images, regardless of the
> method of production?
>  You are not making any sense.

    I meant 'exactly', as in, it wasn't secondary. The method of production 
in 'your' eyes was 'pov only'. Tell the truth Warp, did you judge *solely* 
on what the image looked like? Or did you take into account that an image 
used pov only?



>
>>   No, but you, (povray), asked, (pleaded?). I entered within the rules - 
>> but
>> there was *no way* I would win using an image made up of Wings models 
>> only,
>> however good it would be.
>
>  Yeah, you know this thing better because you were a judge and I was not.
> Or I am just a liar. And you know I'm lying because... because... well,
> just because.

    Now you're not making sense.


>
>> >  It's you who seem quite naive. Were you expecting to win because 
>> > making
>> > your image "costed you money"?
>
>>   I'd never expect to win in any contest, but trust me, it cost me money. 
>> I
>> 'paid' in time to enter this comp. I could have been doing other things 
>> at

>
>  Oh, I'm sorry. Perhaps we should give you a refund?

    Don't be pedantic. I only earn that around Christmas time, and most of 
the other time, I probably earn less than the minimum wage here in the UK. 
My analogy is sound because I compare it with the effort that I put in only 
to see that "(instead of resorting to cheap meshes created by third-party 
tools)" is the *real* cludge here.


>
>> >>   Say what you like, I know I'm right.
>> >
>> >  Self-righeousness is the way to go, yeah.
>
>>    Yeah. Self-righteousness in the 'right' way. I have no problem with 
>> that.
>> And nor did other big artists in their day.
>
>>    I'm *still* right.
>
>  You are still an idiot, it seems.

  <sigh> And there you go. A judge calling someone an idiot. So you 
concluded that I was an idiot before, then? That's the first time you've 
called me an idiot, but it was already in your head. I rest my case with you 
being a judge, and biased towards me. I've met you before. If I'd have 
entered, and everyone else thought my image was the best, I bet you would 
have argued against them. Tell me you wouldn't have.


>  You are not making any sense, you are unable to give rational arguments
> about your claims, you have an idiotic principle of not listening to any
> arguments against your claims and you are calling people liars just 
> because.

  There's that elevated level again. You won't go far Warp.

   ~Steve~