 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen Klebs <skl### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> I feel much the same. What I've always loved about POV-Ray, and I've been
> addicted for a long time, is that you DON'T know exactly what you're going to
> get. Every render is a bit of a surprise and a discovery and the only modelling
> tool you really have is your imagination and what you envision in your head. It
> reminds me of what photography was like in the pre-digital age. You fool around
> with light-meter readings, and estimate distance, and dial in what you calculate
> will be the right f-stops and press a little button. Alt-G. But you never really
> know what the picture looks like until you get it into the darkroom and wait a
> while and gradually watch it develop bit by bit. At no point in Blender or
> Cinema 4D or any modern, real-time renderer do you get that same moment of wow.
>
> Little off topic. Sorry. But I always wanted to say that. In appreciation and
> encouragement of those who still keep this old, somewhat antiquated ship afloat.
>
It isn't really OT, what better way to figure out what to promote about the
current iteration of Pov than to discover not only what people like about
it, but who those people are and why they feel as they do?
One of the great things about Pov is that it forces you to utilize
visualization techniques, which improves your spatial skills and overall
mental proficiency in imagining complex things. This translates very well
into software development skills, as I will explain later.
An exercise I taught my wife and 6yo son which I have found to be very
effective, is to imagine a V8 engine in your mind, as a transparent
assembly, then run it, imagining each part operating properly at the same
time while rotating it around mentally and pulling pieces away, changing
the color, texture and transparency levels the entire time. You can even
cause it to fail in a number of ways.
You can then extend the idea to even more complex machines. A good place to
start is with a 2 stroke engine and work your way up to successively more
complex devices.
Envisioning chemical reactions down to the bonds/electron shell/valency
interactions can be very effective as well, which then builds into the
ability to visualize mathematical expressions as surfaces and volumes.
This technique is relaxing and really develops many skills such as thinking
along multiple, even contradictory, lines simultaneously. It isn't hard and
can be learned fairly easily.
A huge roadblock people unwittingly foist upon themselves is falling prey
to thinking linearly in words and speech, instead of multidimensional
images. This gets you into the habit of self constraint in mental
processing.
That constraint is also what stops people from reading a page or paragraph
at once, as instead they read to themselves in their mind. Your eyes
capture the page at once, and if you train yourself you can assimilate the
information at that same rate.
Most of the work I do with software is handled as a visualization exercise
and a background process, as I spend time doing other things or sitting
there with a bowl of fine Virginia flake tobacco, letting my mind process
all of the algorithmic interactions. Once that is all wrapped up, I spend a
few hours coding, and I am done. It is basically hours or days of quiet
contemplation followed by moments of frenzied typing. ;-)
This technique of visualization has enabled me to develop the reputation at
work for writing fully formed software with few to zero bugs, and in most
circumstances to debug legacy code without running it, once I memorize the
code base.
I wasn't kidding when I credited Pov and the Dev team for my career. While
my memory has always been very close to eidetic (but alas, I age...), I
doubt my mind would function as it does now without the influence Pov has
imparted to me, thus granting the ability to visualize code interaction as
stated. Cheers to all, and my undying thanks.
Perhaps this post will be of benefit to those who are considering a career
to which such modes of thinking would be advantageous. Give it a try, you
will likely surprise yourself with what you can do in short time.
Now this really IS off topic lol!
Ian
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
>
> Well, I am going to spend some more time in Blender. To see what I can
> break. ;-)
>
Speaking ex cathedra as a developer here:
ALWAYS the best test of any software. :)
--Sherry Shaw
--
#macro T(E,N)sphere{x,.4rotate z*E*60translate y*N pigment{wrinkles scale
.3}finish{ambient 1}}#end#local I=0;#while(I<5)T(I,1)T(1-I,-1)#local I=I+
1;#end camera{location-5*z}plane{z,37 pigment{granite color_map{[.7rgb 0]
[1rgb 1]}}finish{ambient 2}}// TenMoons
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
[GDS|Enropy] wrote:
>
> I hate the
> imprecision of most 3d software I have tried. I suppose I have some degree
> of OCD going on because that imprecision bothers the heck out of me.
>
I have a Big Giant Truckload of OCD going on and that imprecision is
_precisely_ what bothers me.
OCD and I are old friends. We have reached an agreement. Whenever I
find myself starting to count, I instead start to sing (preferably
subvocally, out of consideration for the rest of the world). I don't
REALLY know how many steps it is from the front door of my house to the
driver's door of my car, because that would be creepy.*
But deliberate imprecision...??? When precision is readily available...???
The human fingertip makes a really crappy mouse cursor. It doesn't have
a hotspot marked, and it obscures the point of contact just as a basic
factor of its structure. And there's a keyboard with a number pad on it
RIGHT THERE...
So.....one million bonus points to whoever remembers the name of that
Asimov story about the little genius boy who could do simple arithmetic
without a calculator, since I think it sort of applies to this issue.
--Sherry Shaw
* 43, unless I park funny. OH, GACK! "The ants go marching one by one,
hurrah, hurrah. The ants go marching one by one, hurrah, hurrah..."
--
#macro T(E,N)sphere{x,.4rotate z*E*60translate y*N pigment{wrinkles scale
.3}finish{ambient 1}}#end#local I=0;#while(I<5)T(I,1)T(1-I,-1)#local I=I+
1;#end camera{location-5*z}plane{z,37 pigment{granite color_map{[.7rgb 0]
[1rgb 1]}}finish{ambient 2}}// TenMoons
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen Klebs wrote:
> ...why many people don't feel comfortable
> not being able to see what they will get.
>
Maybe this falls under the general heading of "You Know You've Been
Ray-Tracing Too Long When...," but possibly the best moment of
POV-userdom comes in that first shiny, shimmering, dark chocolate, sharp
cheddar, soft black velvet, cork-popping-on-New-Year's-Eve,
puppy-breath, giggling-baby, green-flash-at-sunset, sparkly moment when
you type in a few dozen lines of code and know _exactly_ what you'll get.
--Sherry Shaw
--
#macro T(E,N)sphere{x,.4rotate z*E*60translate y*N pigment{wrinkles scale
.3}finish{ambient 1}}#end#local I=0;#while(I<5)T(I,1)T(1-I,-1)#local I=I+
1;#end camera{location-5*z}plane{z,37 pigment{granite color_map{[.7rgb 0]
[1rgb 1]}}finish{ambient 2}}// TenMoons
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14-11-2016 14:54, LanuHum wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> On 13-11-2016 20:16, LanuHum wrote:
>>
>>> Some years I post screenshots:
>>>
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3Cweb.5302425140bf5a347a3e03fe0%40news.povray.org%3E/?mtop=40
> 2018
>>> &moff=109
>>>
>>>
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3Cweb.56d33fab8302842a7a3e03fe0%40news.povray.org%3E/?mtop=40
> 7442
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yes, something like that would be nice indeed to have in POV-Ray.
>>
>> --
>> Thomas
>
> Where is it? This is for Povray.
> :)
>
Yes, I know, but I understand that this is embedded in Blender, isn't
it? So, is that not a problem for those not familiar with Blender?
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/15/2016 8:01 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Yes, I know, but I understand that this is embedded in Blender, isn't
> it? So, is that not a problem for those not familiar with Blender?
I would love to see what LanuHum's translator makes of that last
sentence. ;-)
The problem with Blender is that it is so big and it takes a lot of time
to get to the point where you don't have to think about how to do
things. But I can see that it will be worthwhile.
And the Z-axis is up. :(
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15-11-2016 9:52, Stephen wrote:
> On 11/15/2016 8:01 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> Yes, I know, but I understand that this is embedded in Blender, isn't
>> it? So, is that not a problem for those not familiar with Blender?
>
>
> I would love to see what LanuHum's translator makes of that last
> sentence. ;-)
Oh dear, yes, I am sorry for that! ;-)
>
> The problem with Blender is that it is so big and it takes a lot of time
> to get to the point where you don't have to think about how to do
> things. But I can see that it will be worthwhile.
>
> And the Z-axis is up. :(
>
My own thoughts were originally going towards a dedicated tool,
specifically built for POV-Ray, like Moray was. I am starting to realise
that that may not be the smart way to go at all. As has been mentioned
here, Blender might be the solution. However like you, I am afraid it
may represent a serious hurdle to take before even reaching the POV-Ray
application.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> On 11/15/2016 8:01 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> > Yes, I know, but I understand that this is embedded in Blender, isn't
> > it? So, is that not a problem for those not familiar with Blender?
>
>
> I would love to see what LanuHum's translator makes of that last
> sentence. ;-)
>
> The problem with Blender is that it is so big and it takes a lot of time
> to get to the point where you don't have to think about how to do
> things. But I can see that it will be worthwhile.
>
> And the Z-axis is up. :(
>
> --
>
> Regards
> Stephen
I was thinking about the coordinates system this morning in the bus! Telling
myself it would come up in the discussion:
Our exporter applies transformation matrices to Blender objects and
switches them to pov coordinates this makes it comfortable for the user who
dosen't even have to think about xyz for simple scene drafting visually and can
keep thinking in pov coordinates system once he exported the scene and tweaks it
in a text file if necessary,
It does give us more complexity in the development of this exporter. Does it
slow up our export by a lot?
Anyway if one day one of the two software offered the two coordinates sytems, we
would strip these lines and see what it changes, but until then we'll have to
keep adapting.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 15.11.2016 um 09:52 schrieb Stephen:
> On 11/15/2016 8:01 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> Yes, I know, but I understand that this is embedded in Blender, isn't
>> it? So, is that not a problem for those not familiar with Blender?
>
>
> I would love to see what LanuHum's translator makes of that last
> sentence. ;-)
>
> The problem with Blender is that it is so big and it takes a lot of time
> to get to the point where you don't have to think about how to do
> things. But I can see that it will be worthwhile.
>
> And the Z-axis is up. :(
Does it at least have a right-handed coordinate system?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 15.11.2016 um 10:01 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 15-11-2016 9:52, Stephen wrote:
>> On 11/15/2016 8:01 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> Yes, I know, but I understand that this is embedded in Blender, isn't
>>> it? So, is that not a problem for those not familiar with Blender?
>>
>>
>> I would love to see what LanuHum's translator makes of that last
>> sentence. ;-)
>
> Oh dear, yes, I am sorry for that! ;-)
>
>>
>> The problem with Blender is that it is so big and it takes a lot of time
>> to get to the point where you don't have to think about how to do
>> things. But I can see that it will be worthwhile.
>>
>> And the Z-axis is up. :(
>>
>
> My own thoughts were originally going towards a dedicated tool,
> specifically built for POV-Ray, like Moray was. I am starting to realise
> that that may not be the smart way to go at all. As has been mentioned
> here, Blender might be the solution. However like you, I am afraid it
> may represent a serious hurdle to take before even reaching the POV-Ray
> application.
Maybe someone should get involved with Blender UI development, and
implement an alternative UI for noobs, exposing only a subset of the
features, to give new users some guidance what features they really
need. Wings 3D does that (or at least did when I last used it), and I
really liked it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
