Rune wrote:
> 
> [...]
> I don't see why you seem to
> think that it is such a great advantage to use function based
> environments, if you compare the pros and cons.

Because i have used it and it works very nicely.  Maybe just try it out
with some heightfield object (and an image_map function in comparison).  I
remember this flowing animation with two channels dividing and merging you
once posted,  this would be a nice test object.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,                 
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/  
Last updated 13 Aug. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

Christoph Hormann wrote:
[things about the terms of use]

Christoph, I've changed the terms of use on my web site a little. Could
you have a look at them now and let me know if they are any better than
before?
http://runevision.com/welcome/terms/terms.asp

(I have not yet changed the terms of use written in the documentation
for the particle system itself.)

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
rune|vision:  http://runevision.com (updated Oct 19)
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Rune wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>> I don't see why you seem to think that it is
>> such a great advantage to use function based
>> environments, if you compare the pros and cons.
>
> Because i have used it and it works very nicely.

You didn't comment on the issue of the environments being complex CSGs
or meshes. I still think that's a big limitation of function based
environments. Sure they have other advantages instead, but I didn't want
to implement both methods, and when choosing just one, I by far prefer
the object based environments.

All the time I have profiled my particle system on its
user-friendliness, and I couldn't have done that with function based
environments.

> Maybe just try it out with some heightfield object
> (and an image_map function in comparison).

"Just try it out"? It's you who have support for it in your system.
Implementing it in mine would take a very long time, and I'm not
interested in it in the first place.

> I remember this flowing animation with two channels
> dividing and merging you once posted, this would be
> a nice test object.

I can send you the image I used for the height_field if you want it...
But I think it would look better if the height_field is rotated by the
angles <5,15,5>. Doing this with an object is extremely easy, even for a
newbie user. Is it that with a function based environment too?

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
rune|vision:  http://runevision.com (updated Oct 19)
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:
> 
> Christoph, I've changed the terms of use on my web site a little. Could
> you have a look at them now and let me know if they are any better than
> before?
> http://runevision.com/welcome/terms/terms.asp
> 

As it seems you removed the requirement of contacting you when publishing
images made with help of your files and added a clear mention of the
possibility to obtain commercial licenses.  Surely better.

BTW, your 'pov goodies' section does not contain a link to these terms -
does this mean these are not covered by the restrictions?

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,                 
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/  
Last updated 13 Aug. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:
> 
> You didn't comment on the issue of the environments being complex CSGs
> or meshes. I still think that's a big limitation of function based
> environments. 
> [...]

Surely it is.  I did not want to start a religious discussion on that
matter. i just wanted to mention that functions might be an improvement in
certain situations and surely would be a solution for certain problems.  I
would never suggest to remove intersection based collisions completely in
favor of function based ones, just an alternative.

Of course the advantages are much more significant if the particles have a
radius (like in my simulation system).

And if user-friendliness was the only criteria isosurfaces would never
have been implemented in the first place... ;-)

> [...]
> 
> But I think it would look better if the height_field is rotated by the
> angles <5,15,5>. Doing this with an object is extremely easy, even for a
> newbie user. Is it that with a function based environment too?

Sure, you should really try the IsoCSG library:

#declare fn_Rotated=
  IC_Transform(
    function { fn_Original(x, y, z) },
    transform { rotate <5,15,5> }
  )

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,                 
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/  
Last updated 13 Aug. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Surely better.

Ah, good.

> BTW, your 'pov goodies' section does not contain
> a link to these terms - does this mean these are
> not covered by the restrictions?

Err, well. The files on the goodies page are not include files, they are
just some pov files that describe some techniques that are not even
particularly advanced. Since you can't copyright a technique, I cannot
(and will not) prevent people from using those techniques wherever they
want.

Of course the files still may not be redistributed etc. I also still
appreciate credits where due (like for example you have done on your
page), but I cannot make it a strict requirement.

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
rune|vision:  http://runevision.com (updated Oct 19)
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:
> 
> Christoph Hormann wrote:
> [things about the terms of use]
> 
> Christoph, I've changed the terms of use on my web site a little. Could
> you have a look at them now and let me know if they are any better than
> before?
> http://runevision.com/welcome/terms/terms.asp

Food for thought...

If I modify and use one of your include files to make an image I recieve $100
dollars for, and never credit nor contact you, are you willing to pursue legal
action against me in an international court of law?

Are you ready to back up your words with actions?

Otherwise, what do you hope to accomplish with these terms of use?

-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote:
> Food for thought...
>
> If I modify and use one of your include files to make
> an image I recieve $100 dollars for, and never credit
> nor contact you, are you willing to pursue legal
> action against me in an international court of law?

No, most likely not, and chances are I'd never find out about it in the
first place.

> Are you ready to back up your words with actions?

Only to some extent.

> Otherwise, what do you hope to accomplish with these
> terms of use?

Instruct honest people how they may use the files that I have made
available?

It has paid off a few times you know...

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
rune|vision:  http://runevision.com (updated Oct 19)
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

Allow me to play Devils Advocate for a moment here -

---------------------
I just copyrighted the following scene.

camera{location<0,0,-3>look_at 0}
light_source{<0,0,-2> rgb 1}
box{-.5,.5 pigment{rgb 1}}

You may not use the same syntax in any of your scenes or make derivative
works from it without first contacting me, paying me royalties and ensuring
that I am duly credited.
-----------------------



-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote:
> Allow me to play Devils Advocate for a moment here -
>
> ---------------------
> I just copyrighted the following scene.
>
> camera{location<0,0,-3>look_at 0}
> light_source{<0,0,-2> rgb 1}
> box{-.5,.5 pigment{rgb 1}}
>
> You may not use the same syntax in any of your scenes
> or make derivative works from it without first
> contacting me, paying me royalties and ensuring that
> I am duly credited.
> -----------------------

Sure, I won't copy it, but I may by coincidence make an almost identical
scene file myself one day.

I really don't get what point you're trying to get through. The scene
above is a very minimal one that anyone could come up with, and thus it
doesn't make sense to copyright it. Are you implying that my include
files are equally simplistic, and that anyone could come up with those
too? If you have an actual message, could you say it in a more direct
way?

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
rune|vision:  http://runevision.com (updated Oct 19)
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message