In article <3edb7069$1@news.povray.org>,
 "Ray Gardener" <ray### [at] daylongraphicscom> wrote:

> I have considered that. I was about to write
> or modify a RIB renderer, for example.
> But I wasn't aware of the camera statement
> flexibility per se; thanks. If the POV-Team
> didn't mind me copying their parser code,
> the argument for doing a new app would
> certainly be better advanced. POV also
> has all the other infrastructure, such
> as texture file loading, in one nice spot.

A simple look at the license would tell you that you can only use the 
source for a custom version of POV-Ray, and it must only add to the 
functionality of the program (you can't remove the raytracer). Aside 
from this, the parser would not be that useful to you: it builds the 
entire scene in memory for the raytracer to render, changing it to do 
something else for your scanliner would require rewriting huge amounts 
of it (like pretty much all the code handling objects).


> I believe POV's future lies in being a more powerful platform for 
> creating 3D graphics in general, not just as a raytracer.

The future of the Persistance Of Vision Raytracer is to be a scanline 
renderer?


> For all I know, this experiment
> may one day lead to POV-Ray becoming the dominant
> film production tool for CG effects, and enable
> a whole new population of movie producers.

Why? That's not the goal of POV, and there are already tools for those 
jobs. POV is primarily a hobbyist tool, and is oriented more for complex 
stills with extremely realistic effects.

-- 
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message