In article <Xns### [at] 204213191226>,
 "Rafal 'Raf256' Maj" <raf### [at] raf256com> wrote:

> finish { ambient 0 }
> finish { ambient 0 diffuse .3 reflection { .2 .4 } metallic .7 brilliance 
> 1.2 }
> 
> will need 2 macros to make any sens, or one macro to be used like :
> Fin(0, -1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1); 
> where -1 means "default value"

Far too many parameters to be practical there...and what's wrong with a 
set of macros?


> ok, It was just a suggestion. Meany peoples says "what, I had to write 10 
> pages to get a simpel image ? no - thanks" and it's not easy to convince 
> them... well - theirs problem ;)

And a third as many pages of apparently garbage text is an improvement?
People already balk at the idea of learning the scene language, it helps 
if the keywords actually make some sense. Someone new to POV sees 
"finish" followed by words that describe real-world surface 
characteristics and it is fairly obvious the type of thing it referrs 
to, they see "@@fi" followed by a bunch of similar garbage and what do 
you expect them to think?

-- 
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message