Op 01/03/2021 om 14:42 schreef Mr:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> [...]
> Thanks a lot or your undertaking,
> First note that looking at images through small previews on the web interface of
> theses newsgroups is always error prone and one would naturally go to the more
> contrasted. But opening full screen and really looking at pictures,
> I clearly prefer the third version because a) it's the most realistic would one
> consider the season to be winter (paler) rather than summer, and b)that does not
> show procedural cloud color map edges so contrasted as was so frequently done in
> the nineties, it's crucial now that POV moves away from what people think are
> its limitations to show what it really can do.
> 
> If not already done, could more "modern" macros such as lightsys or
> CousinRicky's metal work or the ones you mentionned be integrated to those
> official libraries at last or is there some show stopper ?
> 

Aha! This again, addresses imo the fundamental question, also mentioned 
by BaldEagle, if we should not take leave of (some) of the "backward 
compatibility" rule. These cloud scenes were great a couple of decades 
ago but hardly anyone nowadays would use them without serious changes; 
even newbies would probably not find them acceptable given the 
development in the field of cgi.

So, I think that POV-Ray's include files should reflect these changes 
and, as Bald Eagle wrote too, provide a switching system to show, where 
possible or available, the evolution of the concept. In the case of 
clouds, that would mean these simple, version 3.1 and 3.5 cloud scenes, 
and the version 3.7+ alternatives.

In other cases, upgrading will be much more straightforward imo. 
Metallic or wood textures e.g. But there too, new additions might be or 
should be seriously considered. After all, over the years, we have 
acquired a huge amount of creative power condensation and deposition! :-)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message