|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 25.06.2010 20:20, schrieb Thorsten Froehlich:
> No, it would not be more productive because SharkD's goal is not to
> help, but to game the system:
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AGAME>. How do I conclude his
> main goal is causing disruption? - He has used the tactic of malicious
> compliance after he was prohibited from vandalizing the Wiki. Next he
> moved to the bug tracker. As such, his "help" simply is not wanted
> because he is not serious in helping the POV-Ray community, but rather
> to poison it.
Hm... so, for instance, summarizing the (more constructive) results of
this discussion on the Wiki is no help?
I prefer to disagree.
And as we're on it inferring a person's motives from their actions alone
and right in their face: I'm more in for "don't assume malice where
stupidity will suffice".
(Sorry Mike, just wording it this way for the sake of the quote.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 25.06.2010 23:18, schrieb SharkD:
> I've compiled a list of points made here and in the thread over in
> p.general:
>
> http://wiki.povray.org/content/Knowledgebase:POV-Ray_Feature_Requests
>
> Is this satisfactory?
Looks like a good summary to me. While a lot of it are actually quotes,
I think they're well-picked, and you did a good job at "polishing" them up.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/25/2010 9:25 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 25.06.2010 23:18, schrieb SharkD:
>> I've compiled a list of points made here and in the thread over in
>> p.general:
>>
>> http://wiki.povray.org/content/Knowledgebase:POV-Ray_Feature_Requests
>>
>> Is this satisfactory?
>
> Looks like a good summary to me. While a lot of it are actually quotes,
> I think they're well-picked, and you did a good job at "polishing" them up.
Thank you!
--
http://isometricland.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
SharkD wrote:
> On 6/19/2010 8:42 PM, stbenge wrote:
>> You left out camera pigment, projection pigment, explicit image filename
>> output for animations (for stuff like CA), last image buffer access... I
>> guess I should make a few requests of my own. If I could patch POV-Ray
>> myself, I would!
>
> Are these MegaPOV features? I haven't ever used MegaPOV.
Only the camera and projection pigments are.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2010-06-19 19:29, SharkD a écrit :
> If you search for tasks by SharkD at the bug tracker you'll see a bunch
> of feature request I've made.
>
> http://bugs.povray.org/
>
> Here's a list if you don't want to do the search:
>
> Option to render pixels randomly, or in Nth pixel
Why?
Maybe try with the crand statement in the finish, applied to the whole
scene. Use a large value for the crand.
> Native support for mesh-based surface approximations
Slow!
Why? To create the mesh, you need to evaluate the base object, about as
long as rendering it, maybe even longer than rendering. When you render
the object, you only render the visible part of it. When you convert it
to a mesh, you also need to evaluate all the parts that you don't see.
Then, you need to render the mesh, fast part.
Then, the generated mesh will take a large amount of memory and you may
not beneficiate fron instancing the mesh, whitch, in turn, can force the
use of the swap file and that's SLOWWW!
A box renders very fast and take a small amount of memory. It's mesh
version would take about the same time to render, and take the memory
needed for it's 12 triangles in addition to the material used and the
transform matrix.
A sphere is defined as a center point, a radius and it's material and
maybe a transformation matrix if it's unevenly scaled or rotated. An
acceptable mesh version can easily need over 100 triangles, and any
transpate will need a transform matrix.
Converting an isosurface to a mesh imply scaning it's whole surface,
even the back parts and parts hiden by other objects.
> Subdivision support
Interesting
> String concatenation operator
This one is available in the current betas for some times now.
#declare String=String1+String2;
With 3.6, there is the concat(String1, String2,...)
>
> I'd like to see some thoughts/comments on these requests.
>
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 26.06.2010 19:48, schrieb Alain:
>> String concatenation operator
> This one is available in the current betas for some times now.
> #declare String=String1+String2;
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but did you actually try?
What the 3.7 betas have by now is string /comparison/ operators.
Concatenation is still only supported via the concat() function.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2010-06-26 16:00, clipka a écrit :
> Am 26.06.2010 19:48, schrieb Alain:
>
>>> String concatenation operator
>> This one is available in the current betas for some times now.
>> #declare String=String1+String2;
>
> I'm sorry to disappoint you, but did you actually try?
>
> What the 3.7 betas have by now is string /comparison/ operators.
> Concatenation is still only supported via the concat() function.
Oups :(
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> No, as per the bug reporting instructions which say, "Only report one
>>>> bug or request one feature per task."
>>>
>>> You know whom you are talking to, don't you? - This reminds me of my
>>> favourite quote: "The ability to speak does not make you intelligent."
>>> I wonder if this also applies to writing? Hmm...
>>
>> Wouldn't it be more productive to try and address the cause of the
>> ambiguity (ie add Chris' point about grouping similar requests to the
>> bug tracker instructions) rather than calling someone stupid who is
>> trying to help improve POV?
>
> No, it would not be more productive because SharkD's goal is not to help,
What does his goal have to do with it? If you'd updated the bug tracker
instructions with Chris' suggestion rather than writing a driveling reply
about SharkD we might be getting somewhere! Hint: Updating the instructions
will make it clearer for future users, calling someone stupid won't (in fact
it might even drive people away from making suggestions)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28.06.10 15:05, scott wrote:
>> No, it would not be more productive because SharkD's goal is not to help,
>
> What does his goal have to do with it?
The goal to provide all of these resources is to share knowledge for the
mutual benefit of users and developers of POV-Ray. They do not exist for
personal entertainment of other interests (exception: the newsgroup
povray.off-topic).
> If you'd updated the bug tracker
> instructions with Chris' suggestion rather than writing a driveling
> reply about SharkD we might be getting somewhere! Hint: Updating the
> instructions will make it clearer for future users, calling someone
> stupid won't
Writing explicit rules to cover every possible case, or every case that ever
comes up, is a pure waste of time and the net result is nobody will read
them. I think I made the point clear on how explicit rules could be ;-)
And there is a difference between pointing that out to someone and calling
them stupid. However, resorting to name-calling as a response is a dead-end
solution!
> (in fact it might even drive people away from making suggestions)
And yes, a community is not about accepting someone who refuses to fit in.
Common sense suggests that making suggestions is way different from stuffing
them into everybody's face in every possible way.
Thorsten
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |