St. wrote:
> Hey, I *LOVE* PoVRay. Let's get that straight, first and foremost. I
> think most of you know that.
>
>   BUT... but...
>
>  After reviewing the judges comments on the winners excellent image,
> I know I won't ever have a chance. Ever. It should be called
> "POVONLYCOMP"!
>
>    Here are some of the comments if you haven't seen them yet:
>
>    "Highly commendable that it did not rely on any imports but that
> the author made use of POV-ray facitities exclusively"
>
>   "A big plus for using extensively the primitives and features of
> POV-Ray (instead of resorting to cheap meshes created by third-party
> tools)"
>
> "Cheap meshes"??!! Try it some time buddy. You'll find it hard to get
> what you want after 10+ days...! (This comment, I have great
> exception to).
>
>   No disrespect to some of those commentors, but after five years+
> using POV-Ray, I DO feel insulted. Especially when the PoVComp rules
> state that: "To be accepted in the competition an entry has to be
> rendered with POV-Ray", - being the number ONE (1) rule in 4. IMAGES
> -  For all PoV-Ray users... That's me, and 'some' of 'you' too.
>
>   I did that, I used POV, but wouldn't have had a chance in hell of
> winning even if my image was better than anyone elses because I
> solely use Wings for my models now, (who wouldn't if they don't have
> the time to work out ALL the maths that's NEEDED to produce a 'PoV
> only' image!!)
>
>   I can accept that, just, BUT, don't *tempt* me to use up my time
> when it's just not going to happen with <whatever> image I might try
> to submit.
>
>  My dismal, failed, attempts, (two), at an image for the POVCOMP cost
> 'me' money and time for your (not very good, inconsiderate, and
> naive) gain.
>
>   Say what you like, I know I'm right.

FWIW I agree with your comments.  In order to produce a "world class" image
with POV, it is better to spend the time on lighting / textures than
modelling.

POV is not suitable for creating most models, the main problem I find with
using CSG is that it is very hard to produce rounded edges on anything but
very simple shapes.  Rounded edges go a long way to make the difference
between photorealistic and "computer generated" IMHO.

Of course POV is great for creating certain types of models, the built in
SDL is very powerful and allows you to create certain objects very quickly
and efficiently.  But you have to look hard to find these types of models,
in real life most objects would be easier, faster and more accurate to model
with a modelling package.

In terms of what images look "world class" from the results, I would have
ordered them differently, as would the two people I've spoken to who have
never used POV.

I think it really needs to be made clear whether any future competitions are
to *render* world class images with POV, or create world class scenes with
POV.  I understood the former was most important, but maybe I was a bit
wrong.