In article <2dko8v0n8gi53kla520aca3au0ltl163a8@4ax.com>,
 ABX <abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote:

> > You seem to miss the point completely. I'm not talking about a post 
> > process feature, isn't that obvious?
> 
> No. You have described some functionality you dream about and I showed you 
> how it could be possible with my patch.

I used this specific example to describe some functionality I've long 
wanted and done some work on implementing, and you gave a completely 
different way to do the same thing. It still has nothing to do with the 
features I described, which is a way to specify some code for POV to run 
to do something that would normally be hard-coded.


> So do you want me to remove it from from MegaPOV 1.1 ?

I think you should definitely consider it. I'm pretty sure a public vote 
would be in favor of its inclusion, but keep in mind the changes you 
would have to make later to the patch and the support of people whose 
scene files no longer work.


> Do you prefer the previous much more limited post_processing ?

I prefer its syntax, though not its limitations.


> Or do you want to deliver vector functions within a month ? I do not 
> understand your intentions. I do not think community want to wait 
> years for post processing.

I posted an early version of my G patch in povray.binaries.programming. 
It is not fully working and the VM isn't as sophisticated as Thorsten's, 
but would be of great help in any programmable features.
Within a month? Probably not, I'll be busy with the end of the semester. 
If someone had asked, I might have put more work into it. But it would 
be easy to prepare for them.


> > Wrong. My script only handled all channels at once because that was all 
> > that was needed. It could easily handle channels separately.
> 
> Can you deliver sources for inclusion in compilation ?

Of course not. As I said, that was just an example of a possible syntax, 
the patch does not exist yet.


> I completly understand your point here but the problem is that I do not have
> vector functions available. And I can hardly see when they will be available.
> But once the sources will be available you can improve it, I will be happy 
> about that.

Vector functions are available, in the form of pigment functions. Code 
that uses pigment functions will be compatible with future vector 
function additions. A more robust solution might be to use vector 
functions and make a triple-function pigment or vector function (so 
people don't have to mess around with averaging multiple pigments).

BTW, will the next MegaPOV fix the name of the solid pattern?

-- 
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