421e3e20@news.povray.org...
>  I did that, I used POV, but wouldn't have had a chance in hell of winning 
> even if my image was better than anyone elses because I solely use Wings 
> for my models now, (who wouldn't if they don't have the time to work out 
> ALL the maths that's NEEDED to produce a 'PoV only' image!!)

Of the 5 top images, 4 were made using external modelers or use commercial 
meshes. One is mostly a Wings-only image. It's not like using meshes was 
considered a no-no in POVCOMP. Some of the comments are dissing mesh use 
(thus honouring a long-time tradition in POV-Ray circles, even though 
POV-Ray renderings of 3DS models were featured in the previous HOF...), but 
overall the results say otherwise and acknowledge that tools like Wings are 
here to stay.

The comments on Twin Girls and Model Expo praise the modelling done in these 
pictures (and in the latter case it's made with Rhino, which is not a 
hobbyist tool, something that people may frown about). If either of these 
had won, the competition would have been heavily criticised for promoting 
mesh use and a lot would have been said about POVCOMP being the final nail 
in CSG's coffin. The mesh vs CSG is an old, heated debate in this community 
and this is not going to change anytime soon. However, an image *** had *** 
to win, OK?

The winner is a POV-only picture AND it also happens to be a fantastic 
picture. As I've said already in this group, what counts is whether or not 
the author uses the right tools to reach his/her artistic and technical 
goals. The winning image used CSG very wisely with superior results, that's 
all.

About the comments: they reflect the opinions of the judges who felt like 
commenting on this or that image, but they are not representatives of all 
the judges. These are personal opinions, not official statements.

G.


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

Jeremy M. Praay <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote:
> Perhaps I'll comment more on Steve's post later, but I believe that 
> POVCOMP's prizes were simply too large for such a relatively small 
> community.

  Yes, we have seen several times already (the ones seen in here are
not the only ones) that when there's money involved, some people will
cause quite a lot of fuss.

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Ross <rli### [at] everestkcnet> wrote:
> "full potential of povray." doing something entirely in CSG doesn't explore
> the full potential one bit (i agree with you here). Neither does using all
> mesh models, however the ability to use 3rd party models is a capability of
> POV.

  A capability. One.

  Imported models were not judged negatively in any way. Basing the
entire image on imported models was because that is using just one
single POV-Ray feature. The goal of the competition was to get more
than that.

> I was going to say, "Look at 'Victoria's World'. It uses non-pov things
> pretty extensively and got 3rd place", then i noticed this comment basically
> saying, "It would never win because it used so many things not directly made
> in POV." So i guess, the more I talk, the more i'm siding with you.

  Victoria's World did not win because it was not considered by the
judges to be better than the other three images. While the extensive
usage of imported models might have had some effect on whether it got
third or fourth place, it would have not won the first prize even if
it had been done 100% in pov. I'm pretty certain of this.

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

St. wrote:

Steve you echo a lot of my own anger.

I was trying to find a way to rise above this dispute.  But I guess not.

So I'll say this. I thought that fact that one of the judges would 
repeatedly use the comments section as a soapbox for this ridiculous 
bias of his was in extremely poor form.  I was more than a little 
shocked that such bias was represented on the judging panel at all, and 
even more so that these petty-minded opinions were allowed to see the 
light of day.  For me it is extremely disheartening, not in the least 
because I enjoy "pure" csg extremely, and now actually find it hard to 
use because this "issue" has been so stupidly politicized.  These 
comments are, in my opinion, low-minded, retrograd, and do not reflect 
the spirit of POV-Ray.

St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>     Ross, no third party models were used in my image. They were all mine. 
> Around 150+ made in Wings.

  So, is it your opinion that since you made 150+ objects in Wings you
should have won the competition?

>    Still can't find it? I missed the deadline by minutes in the end, ( I 
> tried, literally), but to no avail, ask the comp compilers.

  And still you dare to argument that you would have not won because
you were using too many imported models?
  Pretty big assumptions you make...

>     Well, obviously, that wasn't my image, but that's what would have been 
> said about my image after a lot of hard work. So, back to my point. Why 
> entice PoVRay users, (generally), to enter this contest if it was worthless 
> to the external modeler?

>   Why did so many good CG artists enter this comp knowing that external 
> models would fare badly?

  There's a big difference between using external models and composing
your entire scene solely of external models.
  The objective of the competition was not to show how POV-Ray can be
used to project meshes onto the screen.

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

"Renderdog" <slo### [at] hiwaaynet> wrote in message 
news:web.421e49cfcbe05ebab8a63dd50@news.povray.org...
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>>   Then I was right. So why entice 'other' povray users, ABX? Numbers 
>> maybe?
>> Sorry ABX, but I am pissed with this - and if anyone thinks it's "sour
>> grapes", you're SO wrong. I want to learn POV the way *I* want to learn 
>> it,
>> and use it. That's what it's there for. To use.
>
> POVComp's existence doesn't prevent you from using POV-Ray however you
> wish, it was a voluntary contest.

  I know that, but wouldn't ever have won *anyway* with the way I WANTED TO 
USE IT.


   POVCOMP won't happen again, (I haven't had answers to my question about 
if POVCOMP will happen again). But many images, made 'their' day.


 How you were "tempted" and "enticed"
> to use it I'm not sure I want to know :-),

I hope you're not taking the #### with that statement. Seriously. ;)


but you certainly weren't
> forced and the rules and guidelines were there for all to read.

  Oh, please RD. Did I say 'forced' anywhere in my post?! No.

  I wanted to enter to try and get a computer for my daughter for Christmas. 
That was my drive, nothing else, (think how pissed-off I am with messing my 
detail images up!)  I'll find it easy to NOT enter another povcomp now, 
unless of course, I use pure SDL. (Which might happen. Just because I use 
Wings mostly now, it doesn't mean I *can't* do the *pure* thing - although 
people just forget in here. I 'do' have the patience to do it).

 My ART would be extremely limited though. PoV doesn't adjust profusely for 
this, art-wise, generally.

  Go Figure. ;)

   ~Steve~

Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> So I'll say this. I thought that fact that one of the judges would 
> repeatedly use the comments section as a soapbox for this ridiculous 
> bias of his was in extremely poor form.  I was more than a little 
> shocked that such bias was represented on the judging panel at all, and 
> even more so that these petty-minded opinions were allowed to see the 
> light of day.  For me it is extremely disheartening, not in the least 
> because I enjoy "pure" csg extremely, and now actually find it hard to 
> use because this "issue" has been so stupidly politicized.  These 
> comments are, in my opinion, low-minded, retrograd, and do not reflect 
> the spirit of POV-Ray.

  The comments only reflected the goal of the competition.

  As I have already said in another article, this was a competition to
show the capabilities of POV-Ray, not a competition to show how POV-Ray
can project meshes onto the screen.

  How does it, in your opinion, show the full potential of POV-Ray if
an entire scene is modelled and created in a third-party tool, textures
are created in photoshop, everything is exported to POV-Ray meshes
and the POV-Ray is just used to project those meshes to screen with
some basic lighting effects?

  The comments basically say "yes, it's a great image, but it's not
better than the winner, and by the way, we were not really looking
for who can use POV-Ray as a mesh renderer, we were looking for who
can use POV-Ray as a raytracer with tons of features".

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>  I'll find it easy to NOT enter another povcomp now, 
> unless of course, I use pure SDL.

  Will you please stop this bigoted ranting?

  No-one has ever said that a scene must be made entirely in SDL to win.
Imported models were just ok.
  What was felt as negative was the excessive use of them.

  Can't you really understand the difference?

-- 
plane{-x+y,-1pigment{bozo color_map{[0rgb x][1rgb x+y]}turbulence 1}}
sphere{0,2pigment{rgbt 1}interior{media{emission 1density{spherical
density_map{[0rgb 0][.5rgb<1,.5>][1rgb 1]}turbulence.9}}}scale
<1,1,3>hollow}text{ttf"timrom""Warp".1,0translate<-1,-.1,2>}//  - Warp -

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:421e67b3@news.povray.org...
> St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>>   Then I was right. So why entice 'other' povray users, ABX? Numbers 
>> maybe?
>> Sorry ABX, but I am pissed with this - and if anyone thinks it's "sour
>> grapes", you're SO wrong. I want to learn POV the way *I* want to learn 
>> it,
>> and use it. That's what it's there for. To use.
>
>  I don't really understand what your POV-Ray learning preferences have
> to do with povcomp.
>  You are pissed off because the organizators were not looking primarily
> for the kind of expertise you have practiced?

  Maybe, but I didn't enter. What are you saying here?

   ~Steve~



>
> -- 
> #macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb 
> x]
> [1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
> -1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - 
> Warp -

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> I know that, but wouldn't ever have won *anyway* with the way I WANTED TO
> USE IT.

Let me get this straight, you're complaining you wouldn't have won,
based on a few judges comments, when you didn't even *enter*?
You just don't know that. As others have pointed out, many of the top
rated images used a lot of meshes.

> POVCOMP won't happen again, (I haven't had answers to my question about
> if POVCOMP will happen again).

Again, you don't know that. However if I'd worked hard to bring this
event about and had to read unappreciative rants like yours I'd seriously
reconsider whether it was worth it.

> I hope you're not taking the #### with that statement. Seriously. ;)

Sorry, I don't understand this.

> I wanted to enter to try and get a computer for my daughter for Christmas.
> That was my drive, nothing else, (think how pissed-off I am with messing my
> detail images up!)  I'll find it easy to NOT enter another povcomp now,
> unless of course, I use pure SDL. (Which might happen. Just because I use
> Wings mostly now, it doesn't mean I *can't* do the *pure* thing - although
> people just forget in here. I 'do' have the patience to do it).
>
>  My ART would be extremely limited though. PoV doesn't adjust profusely for
> this, art-wise, generally.
>
>   Go Figure. ;)

You're posts read very emotional and you aren't responding to some
very good points Warp and Gilles have made.