|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24/09/2014 17:56, clipka wrote:
> Did I ever mention that whatever features MCPov has (*) is also on the
> to-do list for UberPOV? ;-)
>
> (* uh, wait... MCPov is based on MegaPOV, isn't it? Well, I won't be
> able to add all /that/ to UberPOV... not in the one-man show UberPOV
> currently is.)
Do we change the name to UnterPov?
Or UnterMcPov Hoots!
I've never really used these unofficial versions as I need a modeller.
And neither Moray nor Bishop3D supported them. You are making me
re-evaluate that. Especially considering the way Blender is being
developed.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 24.09.2014 19:25, schrieb Stephen:
> I've never really used these unofficial versions as I need a modeller.
> And neither Moray nor Bishop3D supported them. You are making me
> re-evaluate that. Especially considering the way Blender is being
> developed.
That's one more design goal of UberPOV: Make it as simple as possible to
make use of the added features from a classic POV-Ray scene.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> I've never really used these unofficial versions as I need a modeller.
> And neither Moray nor Bishop3D supported them. You are making be
> re-evaluate that. Especially considering the way Blender is being developed.
>
> --
>
> Regards
> Stephen
It's not too difficult. Just model, export to Povray, and then edit the Povray
code to your liking.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24-9-2014 23:41, clipka wrote:
> That's one more design goal of UberPOV: Make it as simple as possible to
> make use of the added features from a classic POV-Ray scene.
>
May I assume that the shadow-dropping issue has been circumscribed
enough for you to find a vaccine?
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25/09/2014 05:39, jhu wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>
>> I've never really used these unofficial versions as I need a modeller.
>> And neither Moray nor Bishop3D supported them. You are making be
>> re-evaluate that. Especially considering the way Blender is being developed.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Regards
>> Stephen
>
> It's not too difficult. Just model, export to Povray, and then edit the Povray
> code to your liking.
>
Yes you can and you can use workarounds in the modellers to export hand
written code so that there is less need to edit in Pov.
I am more interested in animations so I generally do not want the long
render times that these quality features take. And I am lazy, I still
use code that Thomas created for Moray for a lot of my materials as a
starting point. So there has not been any point, for me up to now. But I
find the graininess of these images very attractive.
The other point is that Blender is alive and being developed while Moray
and Bishop3D are not. Also the direction that the official Blender
working on the reed stalks looks comparable to what you would do in
Poser, if you could do it.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 25.09.2014 09:20, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 24-9-2014 23:41, clipka wrote:
>> That's one more design goal of UberPOV: Make it as simple as possible to
>> make use of the added features from a classic POV-Ray scene.
>
> May I assume that the shadow-dropping issue has been circumscribed
> enough for you to find a vaccine?
It has, indeed. I'll need to do some vivisecting and microscoping, but I
can do that with lab rats - no need for further examination of cases in
the wild.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot wrote on 24/09/2014 16.48:
> A pointillist version ;-)
>
> I added a tiny transparency to the image_maps involved in the proximity
> patterns and that proved to be a good workaround. Thanks Christoph.
>
> Tomorrow I shall render a better final version.
>
> Thomas
>
A very particular effect!
Paolo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |