The hardcore povrayer test.

  Read the allegations below. For each allegation that is true in your
case, you receive the amount of points in parentheses at the end of the
line. The maximum point amount is 78. Please be honest.
  My personal score is 22.

1. You have participated in the IRTC and got to the top 20 best images. (2)
2. You have won a price in the IRTC. (3)
3. You have made bicubic patches by hand (and they worked as you expected). (2)
4. You have made a program which outputs bicubic patches. (1)
5. You have made big triangle meshes by hand. (1)
6. You have used a poly object bigger than 4th degree. (1)
7. You have calculated the polynomial for that poly object by yourself
   (instead of just trying random values). (2)
8. You know the format of a PCM file. (1)
9. You have made one by hand. (1)
10. You have made a program which outputs a df3 file and used it in a
    scene. (1)
11. You know what a df3 file is. (1)
12. You have made a patch for povray. (3)
13. Your patch is included in the superpatch or at least it's popular. (2)
14. Your patch will probably be included in povray 3.5. (2)
15. You have made a popular tool for povray. (2)
16. You have used every object type, every camera type, every light source
    type, every media type, etc. and know how to use them. (2)
17. You remember the terms of the torus-shaped quartic so that you could
    type the polynomial at any time. (2)
18. You understand perfectly the table at page 212 of the povray 3.1 manual
    and use it to create your poly objects. (2)
19. You know what does 'sturm' mean and how it's calculated. (2)
20. The intensity multiplier curves and light fading functions in the light
    source section in the povray manual are very clear and you understand
    them perfectly and you actually use them to choose your light source
    types. (2)
21. You understand how photon mapping works (at algorithm level). (1)
22. You have found the 'average normal bug' by yourself in a povray version
    previous than 3.1e. (1)
23. You know exactly what was causing it. (2)
24. You never include the povray include libraries (like colors.inc) because
    they slow parsing, but always define your colors, textures, etc by
    yourself. (1)
25. You only use the png format when working with povray. (1)
26. You always use it with alpha channel. (1)
27. It's very easy to you to make slope maps and actually you often use
    them to make your textures. (1)
28. You know what the 'use_index' keyword is used for without looking at
    the manual. (1)
29. You understand the matrix transformation and you can write them by
    hand. (2)
30. You know how to calculate the matrix from any number of consecutive
    transformations (translate, scale, rotate). (1)
31. You have set up emacs with povray enhancements (like automatic indentation
    and syntax highlighting) by yourself. (1)
32. You can list all the povray reserved keywords without looking at the
    manual. (2)
33. You could make all the Chris Colefax's includes and macros by yourself
    if you wanted. (3)
34. You use frequency, phase, octaves, omega and lambda without problems
    when creating your own textures. (1)
35. You can tell what does each one of them do (without looking at the
    documentation). (1)
36. You understand the scattering function pictures in the media section of
    the documentation. (1)
37. You remember all the keywords that can be put in a global_settings
    block. (1)
38. You know what does they mean and how to use them. (1)
39. Making good-looking radiosity images is not a problem to you. (1)
40. You remember all the built-in float and vector identifiers. (1)
41. You use all the vector and string functions without problem. (1)
42. Macros, arrays and file-IO directives are a piece of cake. (1)
43. You never get the "camera is inside non-hollow object" warning. If you
    ever get it, it's absolutely intentional. (1)
44. You have made a modeller for povray. (3)
45. You often debug your povray code using the text message streams. (1)
46. You can easyly calculate the camera parameters when you want to put a
    box right in front of the camera so that it completely and exactly fills
    the viewing area. (1)
47. You scored in each one of the previous allegations. (10)


-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

Nieminen Mika wrote:
> 
>   The hardcore povrayer test.
> 
>   Read the allegations below. For each allegation that is true in your
> case, you receive the amount of points in parentheses at the end of the
> line. The maximum point amount is 78. Please be honest.
>   My personal score is 22.

  I scored 20 but I think many of your questions are too programmer specific
to accurately describe a "hard core" program user.

 A good question that you missed is:
Can you name without looking every pattern type available, know what the
pattern should look like, and how to implement it without referring to the
docs.


-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

On 14 Jun 1999 08:34:17 -0400, Nieminen Mika wrote:

>13. Your patch is included in the superpatch or at least it's popular. (2)

How about "Your patch is the superpatch?"

I only scored 39, but you needed more techie stuff and less rote 
memorization.  Also, while I understand the illumination curves,
I don't use them to choose a light source, so I didn't get those
points.

Here are some statements you may feel free to add if you'd like.
I'd say you should make scoring easier by making it like the 
canonical purity test - every question's a point, even the ones 
that aren't very likely.

These are knowledge only someone who knows the source would have:
- You know which .c and .h files you must change to add a keyword to 
  the parser.
- You can add a keyword and get it right the first time.
- You know which .c file contains the functionality for each aspect of
  the renderer.
- You can find a bug in the renderer given just a description of the
  symptoms and without using a debugger.

These are things everyone can find out easily but only the truly
hardcore will know:
- You know BOTH reasons why a mesh can't be used in CSG.
- You know that 'merge' doesn't have to be a primitive CSG operation 
  and can recite the equivalent sequence of intersections, unions, and 
  inverses.
- You know that 'difference' isn't a primitive CSG operation and you
  know how POV represents one internally.
- You understand how 'bounded_by' _really_ works.
- You know that a height_field has an inside and how it is defined.

These are accomplishment-oriented, but more realistic than "You could 
do anything Chris Colefax can do" :
- You've written your own include file and distributed it on the net.
- Your include file used one or more of the following: macros, arrays,
  vector algebra (vnormalize, vdot, vcross)
- You understand all the options to 'media' without having to look in 
  the manual.

These are self-referential, like your last question:
- You didn't know the answer to one of the above questions so you tried
  to find it in the manual.
- You didn't know the answer to one of the above questions so you tried
  to find it in the source code. 
- You didn't know that 'merge' wasn't a primitive but now that you do
  you have worked it out for yourself.

Post a reply to this message

Well, I got 21 which I consider pretty good, since I'm not a programmer.
A few comments:

>5. You have made big triangle meshes by hand. (1)
Yes, but not in POV. In POV I sometimes generate them. Entering vertex
coordinates by hand wouldn't be difficult, just pointless, IMO

>10. You have made a program which outputs a df3 file and used it in a
>    scene. (1)
Yes, but I doubt many others have. There's no need - such a program can be
d/l-ed


>19. You know what does 'sturm' mean and how it's calculated. (2)
I know what it means. Knowing the exact method is of little importance in
POVing

>22. You have found the 'average normal bug' by yourself in a povray version
>    previous than 3.1e. (1)
No, but I noticed the double illumination bug. I know the average normal bug
was your pet peeve :)

>25. You only use the png format when working with povray. (1)
How does that evaluate to 'hardcore'? It's just more compact than TGA etc

>31. You have set up emacs with povray enhancements (like automatic
indentation
>    and syntax highlighting) by yourself. (1)
Emacs? What's emacs? Where can I find it under the Start menu? <g>

>43. You never get the "camera is inside non-hollow object" warning. If you
>    ever get it, it's absolutely intentional. (1)
Or absolutely unimportant

Margus

Post a reply to this message

Ron Parker wrote in message <376509ce@news.povray.org>...
>
>>13. Your patch is included in the superpatch or at least it's popular. (2)
>
>How about "Your patch is the superpatch?"
>


At least it's popular :)

I don't really agree that one has to be a C programmer to be a "hardcore
POVer"
That's a disputable matter, of course. And I don't feel like disputing right
now.

Margus

Post a reply to this message

Margus Ramst wrote:

> Emacs? What's emacs? Where can I find it under the Start menu? <g>

Under Programs > Gnu Emacs > Emacs, obviously!
The Win32 port is actually very nicely done.  Particularly, M-x doctor comes in
very handy for those annoying POV problems.. A transcript of an anonymous user's
session is as follows:
>I can't get my media to show up!
>>Why do you say you cannot get your media to show up?
>Because it isn't in the output image!
>>Is it because it is not in the output image that you came to me?
>Yes.
>>I see...  Well, what makes you believe this is so?
>I've put in the media statement, all according to the docs, but nothing shows
up!
>>Does it bother you that nothing shows up?
>Yes.  It also bothers me that it complains about non-hollow objects..
>>When did you first know that it complains about non hollow objects?
>Oh!  Wow!  Thanks!  I hadn't realized that the camera was in a non-hollow
object!
>>Is the fact that the camera was in a non hollow object the real reason?
>Yeah!  It works now!
>>Earlier you said it is not in the output image?
.
.
.
-Alex V.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 17:45:19 +0300, Margus Ramst wrote:
>I don't really agree that one has to be a C programmer to be a "hardcore
>POVer"

I agree, in principle.  But you have to admit that someone who has
added their own keywords certainly qualifies as hardcore.  So I 
guess it's sufficient but not necessary.  Note, though, that most
of the assertions I suggested have little or nothing to do with 
programming.

By the same token, the original purity test has lots of questions
about illegal drug use.  Those of who might normally score low
on that test can't because they have at least a little respect for 
the law and/or their bodies.  Is that fair?  Probably not.  But it's
their test, and they can put whatever they want on it.

I guess I don't have room to argue, since I hold the record score 
so far anyway. I thought of another assertion, though: "You're on 
the POV-Team."  Most of those folks can't get the patching points, 
but they should get lots of points for giving us official versions.

Post a reply to this message

Got a score of 9. I'm an underscore povrayer !
G.


Nieminen Mika wrote:

>   The hardcore povrayer test.
>
>   Read the allegations below. For each allegation that is true in your
> case, you receive the amount of points in parentheses at the end of the
> line. The maximum point amount is 78. Please be honest.
>   My personal score is 22.
>

Post a reply to this message

Heh-heh, little side note here: I once wanted to start using 'gloss' and 'gloss_used'
instead of 'phong' and 'phong_size' so I hacked at the code simply replacing those
words. Biggest mistake I ever made when I realized I couldn't redefine them to be
compatible with other script files. I only used POV-Ray this way a very short while
and
I almost never got back on track again. So a bit of friendly advice here, only "add"
keywords, don't replace them. Oh, and Nieminen M., scanning over that "test" leads me
to
believe I better not even try to see what I'd score, I hate failure.


Ron Parker wrote:
> 
> But you have to admit that someone who has
> added their own keywords certainly qualifies as hardcore.  So I
> guess it's sufficient but not necessary.  Note, though, that most
> of the assertions I suggested have little or nothing to do with
> programming.
> 

-- 
 omniVERSE: beyond the universe
  http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
 mailto://inversez@aol.com?Subject=PoV-News

Post a reply to this message

Alex Vandiver wrote in message <37651C47.231A621E@tiac.net>...
>
>Under Programs > Gnu Emacs > Emacs, obviously!

Yeah, OK, I was afraid somebody would point this out. But my actual point
here was that POVWin (and POVMac?) users don't need to configure Emacs to
have syntax highlighting et al.


>>>Does it bother you that nothing shows up?


Argh! It's questions like these that remind me why I despise M$
troubleshooters :)

Margus

Post a reply to this message