> All basic flow-chart type stuff. Understood clearly by even 
> non-programmers. Objects?

Would it be difficult to understand that a sphere is an object,
with properties (position, size, texture...)  and methods (translate,
rotate, copy,...) ?

Concepts like classes might be harder, but we won't really know
until sample code is produced.

> Will these images entice savvy 3D users into exploring POV-Ray? I've 
> used POV's scripting and instancing to produce "images that 'couldn't' 
> be done with any other app." Here, where 90% of images take a couple 
> night's work, mine impress. On CG Talk, they'd be torn apart for bad 
> lighting.
> 
> The road to "higher" is clearly paved. You could render 10 million CSG 
> models, and no CSG-Talk member would be sold on POV-Ray. Create a great 
> skin or hair texture and you'll have 'em coming.

In the commercial apps, world, it's often a matter of fashion.  Some
years ago, radiosity was most fashionable, now it's faces and skin.
Well, a powerful SDL would also allow easier implementation of advanced
techniques such as hair.  I talked about CSG as an example, but every
aspect of POV-Ray would benefit from

>> If you look at Gilles Tran's images, you will see that, except for
>> pre-made people, cars, and such, everything is done in SDL.
> 
> Yes, he used it as it has been intended, to script his scene, not to 
> model it.

Look at this :
http://www.oyonale.com/variations/variations.php?name=v0207.jpg&lan=fr

Fabien.

Post a reply to this message