> > <sigh> Maybe I'm just bitter and twisted, but I'd still like to know what
> > people think.
> 
> I see your complaint, but I don't quite understand your position. AFAIK,
> you can do everything with POV-Ray 3.x that you could with 2.2. Evenb if
> you lack the patience or ability to use many of the newer features, you
> have lost nothing (and many of them are potentially slow, RAM-hungry, or
> both, so in that way it's just as well).

It's not a complaint as such, (note to self: you forgot smiley off end of 
last paragraph in initial post) but it just feels like I can't understand 
half of the source posted on these groups because I'm not a programmer, 
and as soon as I see a loop or similar structure, something in my brain 
switches off and I give it up as a bad job.

> The only solution to your complaint that I can see that would add value
> to POV-Ray would be to turn it into something like a commercial 3D
> package, with a dedicated modeller and a zillion preset textures and
> such all wrapped up in a friendly GUI interface (and indeed some of the
> people here would NOT want that, even if it was offered to them, because
> it would get in the way of controlling their code). Can you really
> expect that from a free product, coded by a handful of volunteers?

Oh god no!  I wasn't even vaguely suggesting anything of the sort.  I 
like POV as it is, I wasn't particularly bothered about the wait for 3.5, 
it's just that as I think back to how I got into it in the first place I 
realise that if I came across POV today I'd be unlikely to give it a 
second look as it's starting to look like a programming language.

I'll try to be a bit more rational on this subject tomorrow night, but 
it's late, I've got work inthe morning, and my bed is calling to me...

Bye for <yawn> now,
     Jamie.

Post a reply to this message