-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

stbenge wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> stbenge escreveu:
>>> "Out of the box," Blender's procedural texturing system is nowhere
>>> near as powerful as POV-Ray's. I suppose if one were to write his own
>>> shaders, and use scripting along with it, Blender's texturing system
>>> may start to approach the level of POV's in terms of flexibility.
>>
>> Really?  As far as I played with it, it seems to share the same level
>> of functionality, and quite a few more features.
> 
> More features like ambient occlusion, angle of incidence shaders and
> other mapping features... yes. But as kike mentioned, you can't place
> textures inside of textures. POV-Ray also has other pattern modifiers
> which make life much easier....
> 
>>> Sure, in Blender you have access to certain textural elements, and
>>> the node-based system is nice, but I can imagine that certain things
>>> I can easily do in POV would prove to be very hard if not impossible
>>> to do in Blender.
>>
>> Is this a challenge? ;)
> 
> If you want it to be :)
> 
>> If one can show me some difficult pov-only texture, I may try to
>> reproduce it with Blender's procedurals alone once I get home... :)
> 
> Ok, you asked for it! :) Here's a little pattern I whipped up just now
> in POV:
> 
> // Code
> // render with +w500 +h500
> 
> global_settings{assumed_gamma 2.2}
> 
> #default{finish{ambient 1}}
> 
> camera{
>  orthographic
>  right x*2 up y*2
>  location -z*100 look_at 0
> }
> 
> #declare native_motif=
> pigment{
>  gradient y triangle_wave
>  #declare V=0;
>  #while(V<1)
>   translate y*.75
>   rotate z*45.2
>   //rotate -z*45.1
>   scale .98
>   warp{repeat x*5 flip x}
>   #declare V=V+1/100;
>  #end
>  scale .1
> }
> 
> plane{z,-1
>  pigment{
>   native_motif
>   color_map{[0 rgb 0][.5 rgb<.5,.3,.1>][1 rgb 1]}
>  }
> }
> 
> // End Code
> 
>>> At any rate, I find that each program is useful for different things.
>>> In POV you can script up anything you desire with little fuss (great
>>> for science), render thousands of instances of a complex object, have
>>> radiosity in your scene, etc.
>>
>> On a side note, Blender also has an internal radiosity engine, along
>> with a raytracer.
> 
> AFAIK, Blender only has ambient occlusion built in to its renderer. You
> can color your object based on a sky texture (which actually looks
> pretty good), but it's not true radiosity.

	Actually, Blender has "true" radiosity in that it uses the actual
radiosity algorithm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiosity which is
"a finite elements method to solving the rendering equation". Povray
doesn't, what pov calls "radiosity" is actually a Monte Carlo
approach for global illumination ("global illumination" and
radiosity are often confused).

	However, Blender radiosity is pretty difficult to use and get good
results with...

		Jerome
- --
+------------------------- Jerome M. BERGER ---------------------+
|    mailto:jeb### [at] freefr      | ICQ:    238062172            |
|    http://jeberger.free.fr/     | Jabber: jeb### [at] jabberfr   |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------+
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkkA1UIACgkQd0kWM4JG3k9K2QCfT1RNWbKVRsaoinA0mgfq2Jix
LQYAn0Ij27W5LEmWSFX8jJH2qef3fH/X
=lxwS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Post a reply to this message