St. wrote:
> 
>    Shay, don't worry about it. Leave it up, and/or improve
>  it, (I doubt it needs improving from what I've seen from you
> though).

Thanks, but I did go ahead and withdraw it. Worked on it a bit last 
night, and my heart's just not in it anymore. Same with an aborted 
second entry. I'll mail it to you if you want to check it out. Figured 
I'd ask first, 'cause it's 1.6 megs.

<hold on>

Don't have your address handy. I remember the front, but can't remember 
the domain.

  -Shay

"Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote in message
news:418ba20f$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
> >
> >    Shay, don't worry about it. Leave it up, and/or improve
> >  it, (I doubt it needs improving from what I've seen from you
> > though).
>
> Thanks, but I did go ahead and withdraw it. Worked on it a bit last
> night, and my heart's just not in it anymore. Same with an aborted
> second entry. I'll mail it to you if you want to check it out.
Figured
> I'd ask first, 'cause it's 1.6 megs.
>
> <hold on>
>
> Don't have your address handy. I remember the front, but can't
remember
> the domain.

  Well, I've been really cheeky and sent you an email. Hope you don't
mind. Just reply Shay.

   Later mate.

    ~Steve~


>
>   -Shay

St. wrote:
> 
> Well, I've been really cheeky and sent you an email. Hope you don't
> mind. Just reply Shay.

That looks like a RAM *hawg*! The shapes look awesome, but on this 
monitor, every picture looks like a crappy render from 1995, or maybe 
something rendered with +Q1. I wish there were some way to take a screen 
shot of a crappy monitor picture, you'd probably get a laugh out of 
seeing your pic this way. I'm going to forward it home where I can see 
it and then I'll respond to the "crits welcome" part via email where I 
won't give anything away.

I'm off to find mine now. I'm sending it from my work address, so I 
won't get any email reply to that address until Monday.

  -Shay

"Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote in message
news:418bdd9b$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
> >
> > Well, I've been really cheeky and sent you an email. Hope you
don't
> > mind. Just reply Shay.
>
> That looks like a RAM *hawg*!

   Heh, well, close.  ;)

 The shapes look awesome, but on this
> monitor, every picture looks like a crappy render from 1995, or
maybe
> something rendered with +Q1.

 No, what you're seeing are 'some' models in the image *un-smoothed*.
At 800x600, you can't see this, or at least, *I* can't.

  That first image was rendered at bog-standard +a0.0


I wish there were some way to take a screen
> shot of a crappy monitor picture, you'd probably get a laugh out of
> seeing your pic this way.

   'Print Screen' on your keyboard? CTRL-V to any graphics app.


 I'm going to forward it home where I can see
> it and then I'll respond to the "crits welcome" part via email where
I
> won't give anything away.
>
> I'm off to find mine now. I'm sending it from my work address, so I
> won't get any email reply to that address until Monday.

   No probs, looking forward to seeing it Shay. :)

   OH man, just got it. I bow to you young Sir! I'll mail you Monday.

   ~Steve~


>
>   -Shay

While "The aim of POVCOMP 2004 is to show the full potential of POV-Ray", I
am disappointed that objects made in Povray are treated equally as objects
made with modellers on the assumptions that people will spend too much time
on modelling (thus neglecting other things) and models made in Povray won't
be good enough.  I don't object the use of modellers but this is not fair
to the contestants who will be able to deliver, on time, pov models that
are comparable to ones made with modeller. I don't see the point in
continuing as this a complete waste of my effort, I can better spend my
time on other more important matters.

J

St. wrote:

>>  The shapes look awesome, but on this monitor, every picture
>> looks like a crappy render from 1995, or maybe something
>> rendered with +Q1.

>  No, what you're seeing are 'some' models in the image *un-smoothed*.
> At 800x600, you can't see this, or at least, *I* can't.

ROFL. I think you misunderstood. When I said "on this monitor, every 
picture looks...", I meant *every* picture. The monitor is going out. 
It's got nothing to do with *your* pictures.

My Internet service was f'ed at home. The technician just left so I have 
just now gotten to see your pics on a working monitor. Looks great. I've 
got some ideas. I'll start typing an email now.

>> OH man, just got it. I bow to you young Sir!

lol

  -Shay

j wrote:
> While "The aim of POVCOMP 2004 is to show the full potential of POV-Ray",
> I am disappointed that objects made in Povray are treated equally as
> objects made with modellers

POV-Ray has evelved to be a bit more than a renderer. It would be a 
waste IMO if the winner only used the SDL to place a few light sources 
and tweak his rad settings.

  -Shay

web.418d1c60b45fa19e3395a5e60@news.povray.org...

> I don't see the point in continuing as this a complete waste of my effort, 
> I can better spend my
time on other more important matters.

There are things that are better done in SDL. Others are better done with 
modellers. This is nothing new: the old hall of fame from the mid 90s 
featured renders of models created in pure SDL and renders of models created 
in 3D Studio.  Btw, the idea that something done with a modeller is always 
faster and easier is plain wrong. As someone who has been using modellers 
for a while, I can tell you that it's certainly difficult. A single model 
can take weeks or months. And one can spend a lot of time on a mesh model 
and still end up with something ugly. Modellers are not magical tools!

Again, it's the right tool for the right job. If your project is one where 
pure SDL is the perfect tool and that the result is "world-class" (not that 
I'm fond of this expression) it will have demonstrated "the full potential 
of POV-Ray" and will be rewarded accordingly.

In any case, given the variety of talents existing in the POV-Ray community, 
I wouldn't be surprised that the best entries cover the whole gamut of what 
is possible to do with POV-Ray nowdays, from complex constructs built 
entirely in SDL to mesh-based scenes, and mixtures of both. This was already 
the case for the entries submitted so far and the current Hall of fame is 
also a good demonstration of this.

To put it simply, people should not worry about the way the tools they use 
will be perceived by the judges. Use what you think is best to get the 
results you want, and, if you know your trade well, you just can't be wrong.

G.

-- 
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

j wrote:
> While "The aim of POVCOMP 2004 is to show the full potential of
> POV-Ray", I am disappointed that objects made in Povray are treated
> equally as objects made with modellers on the assumptions that people
> will spend too much time on modelling (thus neglecting other things)
> and models made in Povray won't be good enough.  I don't object the
> use of modellers but this is not fair to the contestants who will be
> able to deliver, on time, pov models that are comparable to ones made
> with modeller.

But unless your models lend themselves to being made simply in POV, you will
save time by using a modeller and hence be able to spend more time making
your scene look amazing, which is what the judges want IMHO.

Take this shape as an example, it's a sphere with a square cut down the
middle, and all the edges rounded.  It's just one of the sub-objects that
make up an object in my scene.  How long would it take you to do that in POV
code?

I don't think there are that many realistic looking models that are quicker
to do in POV, especially since most things need rounded edges to look right.
It's just too time consuming to do rounds with CSG.

Attachments:
Download 'untitled1.jpg' (4 KB)

Preview of image 'untitled1.jpg'

418f6e70@news.povray.org...

> But unless your models lend themselves to being made simply in POV, you 
> will
> save time by using a modeller and hence be able to spend more time making
> your scene look amazing, which is what the judges want IMHO.

There are many areas where the power of POV-Ray's SDL can be harnessed to 
create amazing things without equivalent in a modeller. After all, there's a 
good reason why some sort of script is supported in many high-end 3D 
packages...
Basically, everything that can be built algorithmically through a 
shape-building macro has a definite edge over modellers, where this sort of 
procedure isn't very natural. Creating a macro to generate hundreds or 
thousands of different objects based on a random seed is something quite 
unique to POV-Ray for instance (see Chris Colefax's city generator, or my 
own pipe and cloud macro). POV-Ray's SDL will let you place them 
automatically and cleverly too. High-end modellers can do this sort of 
things, but it's really more work than it would be in POV-Ray (at least from 
my current experience with Rhino and Cinema 4D). If you throw in mesh 
instanciation and a smart use of primitives, it becomes possible to create 
insanely complex-looking structures without a render farm. Actually, POV-Ray 
can manage complexity quite well.

G.


-- 
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters