> 
> I should also point out that POV-Ray should be split into three layers.
> 
>     1) The low-level rendering engine with an API
>     2) The SDL which reads the scenes and calls the renderer through the 
> API
>     3) A Moray-like modeler which (likely) produces SDL
> 
> #3 could also talk directly to the rendering API but I think you'd lose 
> some power and flexibility that way.
 >
> The strange thing about my proposal is that the SDL can actually extend 
> the low-level engine.  If you want a sphere, call the low-level API to 
> create one.  If you want a NURB (Non-Uniform Rational B-Spline), code it 
> in the SDL layer, provide methods that do ray-surface intersection, 
> normal calculation, etc, and use it. The low level renderer would treat 
> it just like a primitive shape but call into the SDL layer to do the 
> calculations.  The same applies to new kinds of pigments, finishes, etc.

SDL capable of extending the engine is more or less what Warp suggests.
If doable, and if it doesn't require as much programming skills as
modifying the core itself, it would greatly enhance the number of
people able to help getting POV 4 to a usable state.

In your model, is #2 conceived to be human-writeable-and-readable ?

It seems to me that a combination between the backward-compatibility
thing you suggested and Bruno Cabasson's samples would be ideal.

Fabien.

Post a reply to this message