Gena wrote:
> 
> It's obvious. But I think you'll agree that when you have a solid
> algoritms and data models in place it's just one step to its
> implementation in any other language. One example - Tom-Tree and
> POV-Tree. Scripting language is more convinient as a starting point
> for prototyping, as a proof of concept.

No, i don't agree here.  You are seriously limited in what techniques 
you can use when implementing a plant system in SDL.  Most part of 
developing a plant generator is not the code generating the actual mesh 
but the underlying stuff generating the plant structure.  Making this 
both flexible and intuitive to use at the same time is the real 
challenge and quite impossible with the limited means of the SDL.

>>to be parsed in text form after that which takes time as well.  I tried
>>it and a plant generator integrated into POV-Ray can be faster than
>>parsing the plant mesh alone.
> 
> 
> This is ideal variant. Unfortunately POV-Ray doesn't have plug-in
> structure. Otherwise it could be just 'plant' plug-in.

Oh come on - what is this talk about 'plug-ins' about?  What do they 
make possible that is not possible right now?

> Right now
> you have to write patch in C (or C++ ?) which is less common than
> POV-Ray scripting for the majority of POV-Ray users.

Well - the idea of a patch is not to have the user code in C to use it. 
    The best approach IMO is to have a fairly low level interface to SDL 
that allows very flexible use but have the actual plant generation 
internally for good performance.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Landscape of the week:
http://www.imagico.de/ (Last updated 31 Oct. 2005)
MegaPOV with mechanics simulation: http://megapov.inetart.net/

Post a reply to this message