stm31415 wrote:
> I'm not sure --- I would rather have a set of standards written OUTSIDE of
> pov, an ISO/ANSI/POV-SO? of sorts, that can be conformed to by direct
> choice. It would be fantastic to have a format to follow with a scene file,
> a way to think about lighting, and all that jazz. But I don't want it
> written into pov.

Noone's talking about writing anything into POV.  We're talking about 
include files that come with POV.  The SDL would still exist in its 
current form.


> User-friendlyness is just another word for
> 'thinks-it-knows-what-I-want-better-than-I-do.'

Sometimes yes, but overall user friendliness is an important aspect of 
design.

>  Similar with the object includes. If it is sitting right there, all we end
> up with are the thousands of 'big green apple in a little room, with a
> paintbrush and a artists' wooden model' scenes, like the big fancy
> commercial programs did for so long. Who the heck wants to see another
> perfect, mass-produced virtual teapot?

Noone.  However, I've love to see a big green apple inside someone's 
eye, or some other artistic usage of the objects.  Having the objects 
available just means there is one less barrier between the artist and 
his final render.

> No, as an artistic community we cannot make this choice for technical ease.

Why not?  Many artists are more concerned with artistic composition than 
technical creation anyway.

> me 2 hours to make over an object{sink} any day. Given less primitive
> objects, all we are doing is accepting less control; and control is one of
> POV's most competitive features.

You wouldn't have less primitive objects.  You'd have all the primitives 
you have now.  You would also have a large library of predefined 
objects, textures, finishes, media, etc to choose from.

> Ugh. I keep trying to wrap this up. I just worry about how long it would
> take before I wore down hand-crafting scenes and used the telephone, and
> then the keys, the light, the floor and the wall and the ceiling from the
> includes... I'm not intellectually against using a few accessories to get a
> scene done and looking good. But where will it end?

What's wrong with that?

Around a year ago I was woring on a scene for p.b.i. of a dandelion 
growing in a glass jar, on a windowsill.  Most of the work I did, was 
for the wall and a bottle.  I spent days working on them (status update: 
I lost the code :(, so if I ever return to it I'll have to start from 
scratch), when with a good object library I'd have been done in 5 
minutes.  Then, I could have spent the time on better things.

I would love for this project to get off the ground, and I would 
definitely use the objects it provided.  Of course, there is a certain 
standard of quality: the key factor is that everything provided must be 
*worth* using, meaning we need not only high quality textures, but high 
quality CSG objects.

Anyway, enough ranting for now.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message