 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: Blender to Povray: unofficial version: screenshots
Date: 21 Jun 2015 03:06:10
Message: <55866262@news.povray.org>
|
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
On 20-6-2015 23:24, LanuHum wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
>> Am 04.06.2015 um 23:20 schrieb LanuHum:
>>> Work on the project is stopped.
>>> The repository is removed.
>>> All thanks!
>>
>> You're abandoning your work? Why?
>
> We continue!
> :) :) :)
>
Hurray!!
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degroot org> wrote:
> On 20-6-2015 23:24, LanuHum wrote:
> >
> > We continue!
> > :) :) :)
> >
>
> Hurray!!
>
> --
> Thomas
:)
Perfectly Povray draws a prism from curve bezier!
Blender Internal Render does it inside out!
I surely use it in WIP!
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'prism.blend.jpg' (278 KB)
Preview of image 'prism.blend.jpg'

|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: Blender to Povray: unofficial version: screenshots
Date: 21 Jun 2015 06:51:06
Message: <5586971a$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
On 21-6-2015 11:59, LanuHum wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degroot org> wrote:
>> On 20-6-2015 23:24, LanuHum wrote:
>>>
>>> We continue!
>>> :) :) :)
>>>
>>
>> Hurray!!
>>
>> --
>> Thomas
>
> :)
>
> Perfectly Povray draws a prism from curve bezier!
> Blender Internal Render does it inside out!
> I surely use it in WIP!
>
It makes a beautiful shape.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
"LanuHum" <Lan### [at] yandex ru> wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> > Am 04.06.2015 um 23:20 schrieb LanuHum:
> > > Work on the project is stopped.
> > > The repository is removed.
> > > All thanks!
> >
> > You're abandoning your work? Why?
>
> We continue!
> :) :) :)
Thank you!
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
From: Stephen
Subject: Re: Blender to Povray: unofficial version: screenshots
Date: 22 Jun 2015 03:00:03
Message: <5587b273$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
On 21/06/2015 08:06, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 20-6-2015 23:24, LanuHum wrote:
>> clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
>>> Am 04.06.2015 um 23:20 schrieb LanuHum:
>>>> Work on the project is stopped.
>>>> The repository is removed.
>>>> All thanks!
>>>
>>> You're abandoning your work? Why?
>>
>> We continue!
>> :) :) :)
>>
>
> Hurray!!
>
Hip! Hip! Hooray! (I prefer that spelling and pronunciation :-) )
I am very pleased to hear you are carrying on with your work, LanuHum.
When I can find the time to get back to Raytracing. I will definitely be
using your exporter. :-D
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
From: Paolo Gibellini
Subject: Re: Blender to Povray: unofficial version: screenshots
Date: 23 Jun 2015 03:45:55
Message: <55890eb3$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
LanuHum wrote on 20/06/2015 23.24:
> We continue!
> :) :) :)
>
Very good, indeed!
;-)
Paolo
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
From: clipka
Subject: Re: Blender to Povray: unofficial version [new thread]
Date: 23 Jun 2015 12:20:53
Message: <55898765$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
Am 18.06.2015 um 11:50 schrieb Mr:
> I feel your pain, I went through it, and you can be sure that what you did
> wasn't in vain, not as long as you share the code, some of your code made it in
> the trunk of the official exporter version already, the one that didn't break
> anything. For instance the povray patterns support was added thanks to you, and
> you did huge work with the nodal system. The only problem to integrate this work
> is that you stripped the existing bitmap texture channel export code away. I
> understand that you want to spend more time developing new functionality than
> merging the two versions together, yet that makes it impossible to add to
> official version as it is. Ideal situation would be that a third person feels
> like doing it, but it might never happen. merging your work to trunk would be a
> relief.
I think this is the key indeed: To have you both guys work on just one
exporter.
@LanuHum:
Think about it - what reaction can you reasonably expect from the
Blender community, where POV-Ray is something exotic, when you write
another - unofficial - exporter for it? That's exotic squared. Nobody
goes for that, unless it gives some noteworthy benefit over the /base/
thing (which from the perspective of the Blender community is of course
Blender and the Cycles default renderer, not the official POV-Ray exporter).
(In the POV-Ray community, Blender is still something exotic, too, so
you shouldn't expect too much feedback on your unofficial exporter here
either.)
It's the same as when people develop unofficial versions of POV-Ray: The
1st-tier derivatives may get some attention; and if they're good, they
may even rise to fame within the community, like MegaPOV. But what
/2nd-tier/ derivatives of POV-Ray - i.e. derivatives of derivatives -
has ever caught on? Actually, which other 1st-tier derivative did?
MegaPOV was essentially merge of derivatives to POV-Ray, and thus kind
of "/the/ official derivative".
Well, there's one other POV-Ray derivative that did rise to fame,
actually even a 2nd tier one: MCPov, which was based on MegaPOV. The
reason it caught on? Because it could do unbiased stochastic rendering.
(The blurred reflections and refractions it offered were also a neat
thing, but those could be achieved with basic POV-Ray.)
Getting your work merged into the official exporter would really do it
some good. I myself am actually watching from afar (not being a Blender
user) and waiting for that to happen before I get enthusiastic about it.
Also, your problems with the English language probably don't help to get
people to enter into communication with you on a regular basis, even if
they're seriously interested in your work. It's unfortunate, and not
your fault, but it's a fact that you should take into account when
trying to assess whether your work gets any attention. Communicating
with you (unless it's not a discussion but rather a monologue, like this
post is) takes a lot of energy. (I hope I'm not hurting your feelings by
saying this; all I want is to help you get a clearer picture of the
situation.)
In this sense, too, merging your work into the official exporter might
help: The official maintainer of the official exporter (which I presume
is Mr) could help bridge the language gap between you and people
interested in your work, as he already has some knowledge about your
work and may find it easier to communicate with you about it.
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
@clipka:
Possibly, my dialogue with Mr in the Python language will yield more results,
than my unclear English.
If Mr reads my post in English probably he understands nothing.
Or, badly understands.
But, if he reads my Python-code, he well understands that I want to tell.
Everything that it will find useful to the official version it can take.
But, Mr probably has not enough time for work on the exporter.
Besides, my version is that I want to have at myself.
Perhaps, tomorrow either in a year, or in other time I need to create something
in the Blender and to render a scene in Povray.
Already today my version is more efficient.
It is impossible to make all my changes to the official version.
Also, I don't see that it is possible to add to the official version that it
became more efficient.
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
Use meshmaker.inc
Very good tool!!!
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'loft_test.blend.jpg' (154 KB)
Preview of image 'loft_test.blend.jpg'

|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
From: clipka
Subject: Re: Blender to Povray: unofficial version: screenshots
Date: 28 Jun 2015 00:39:56
Message: <558f7a9c@news.povray.org>
|
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
Am 27.06.2015 um 20:16 schrieb LanuHum:
> Use meshmaker.inc
>
> Very good tool!!!
This looks seriously fascinating!
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |