|
|
RusHHouR wrote:
> So... there are NO ways of converting an object consisting of several shapes
> made in POV-Ray to .obj, .mdl, .3ds, .any-bigger-standard-type-of-mesh? The
> links section is funny. The conversion tools that doesnt have broken links
> hasnt developed since 1998...
>
> Why, WHY was I decieved to actually trying to learn the basics of this
> program. Its created contents are of no use to anyone outside the POV
> realms... To think I could have spent this time learning 3dsm or maya
> instead...
Then you either had to buy them or use an illegal or outdated copy, POV
is still free. IMHO there are three basic differences between POV and
mesh oriented object editors. 1) For most of the latter category
rendering is added as an afterthought. 2) Many POV objects have infinite
precision, a sphere is round, no approximations. You can not have that
with meshes. 3) it is fully scriptable and the source is human readable.
If you think as a programmer that is an incredible big bonus. If you are
spoiled by WYSIWYG trash, you may want to just use a mouse to get things
done and POV is not a good decision.
There is also another thing with POV and that is that many people using
it increase their math skills because they need it constantly. That will
help you when using graphical 3D modelers as well.
> Has anyone else ever had feelings such as these,
Many, it is a recurring question. Check this newsgroup for earlier posts
with the same question. and also
http://tag.povray.org/povQandT/filesQandT.html#converting
> or am I getting like banned now...? :)
No, but you are encouraged to solve your problem. ;)
>
> Man, Im just desillusionized or something. Was asked to do some structures
> for a game, which sounded like fun. Then, ummm.... like "what was that
> format again!?" Eh, just forget it...
Compare it with someone fluent in LISP or Haskell being asked to solve a
problem with some C-code "because you are a programmer, right?".
Two totally different paradigms to solve a problem.
Learn to use your tools well and learn to find out which paradigm is
suited for what problem. And most important: if you fully understand one
paradigm chances are that that knowledge improves your ability to use
another.
What I mean is that your time with POV will not be lost, even if you
only use 3d studio of maya from now on.
As a personal note I want to say that I liked very much what you made
thus far, so your time was also not wasted because you increased the
wellbeing at this side of the internet.
>
> Cant some genious just make a pov-scene-to-single-mesh converter program.
No. Not as such (see also the link), but if you are carefully planning
things you might be able to make a POV scene that is more or less
convertible. All primitives also have an isosurface representation, and
there is some convertor from isosurface to mesh. At least that is what I
remember(, never used it myself). If so then if you restrict yourself to
isosurfaces and meshes and use your #include wisely, you may be able to
convert at least to a set of meshes. Textures, camera and such will be
lost.
> Please.
>
> Doh! :/
Don't be disappointed, keep up the good work.
Post a reply to this message
|
|