I've read a lot of posts that say people don't like modellers because
you can't do multiple rotates etc. Just to let you know, this is what I
do: I write my source directly in POV. When there's a complex object I
can't just measure, I use a 2-D metafile drawing program (In my case,
Micrografx Designer) to draw an orthographic plan of the object. When I
like my results, I transfer the measurements back to POV. It's also
great for zooming way in to check tangent lines and such.
This also allows for a great "cheat" of sorts--if you have a real 3-D
object sitting in front of you, scan it or photograph it or whatever,
then bring the picture into your drawing program, draw your curves over
the pic, delete the pic, and copy the curve measurements into POV
source.
The only thing I really can't do well is bezier patches and
height_fields. Height_fields for things like mountains or whatever are
fairly easy, but what if I want a height_field that's a perfect
hemisphere? Anyway, I'll leave you with this idea.
PS. I've always thought a modeller with hard-code POV on one side and
the wireframe preview on the other would be great. Then you could use
the tools, or just change the POV code directly and get instant results.
And support for multiple transforms and CSG. I've got Visual C++ and
Visual Basic, so maybe I could make it myself someday...

Post a reply to this message

I can only comment on the last sentence. For a perfect hemisphere
heigth_field, you can use this code:

sphere 
{ 0, 0.9999 // avoid coincidence btwn. sphere and gradient
  texture
  { pigment { gradient -z color_map { [0 rgb 0][1 rgb 1] } }
    finish { ambient 1 }
  }
}

camera { location -2*z right x look_at -z orthographic }

You might need to move the camera back or forward for a better fit but
the idea is clear.


Peter Popov
ICQ: 15002700

Post a reply to this message

Larry Fontaine wrote:
> 
> I've read a lot of posts that say people don't like modellers because
> you can't do multiple rotates etc. Just to let you know, this is what I
> do: I write my source directly in POV. When there's a complex object I
> can't just measure, I use a 2-D metafile drawing program (In my case,
> Micrografx Designer) to draw an orthographic plan of the object. When I
> like my results, I transfer the measurements back to POV. It's also
> great for zooming way in to check tangent lines and such.
> This also allows for a great "cheat" of sorts--if you have a real 3-D
> object sitting in front of you, scan it or photograph it or whatever,
> then bring the picture into your drawing program, draw your curves over
> the pic, delete the pic, and copy the curve measurements into POV
> source.
> The only thing I really can't do well is bezier patches and
> height_fields. Height_fields for things like mountains or whatever are
> fairly easy, but what if I want a height_field that's a perfect
> hemisphere? Anyway, I'll leave you with this idea.
> PS. I've always thought a modeller with hard-code POV on one side and
> the wireframe preview on the other would be great. Then you could use
> the tools, or just change the POV code directly and get instant results.
> And support for multiple transforms and CSG. I've got Visual C++ and
> Visual Basic, so maybe I could make it myself someday...

  There is more to the modeller issue than simply the lack of textual
interface. Scenes created in a modeller are often wire frame only.
When the scene reaches a certain level of complexity all the overlapping
wire frames makes it difficult to visualize all of the elements in the
scene due to clutter.
 Additionally where POV-Ray is concerned there is no one single modeller
that supports every function and option that Pov offers. This limits
your creativity because of the limited support. Another issue is that
many people such as myself are still using small screen monitors. It
is difficult to work in a modelling environment with a small monitor.
There are many other arguments I could go into but the lack of a textual
interface is only one of the issues at hand.

  You will also note a certain amount of Pov snobbery involved with
them that write their pov scenes in a text only environment. Kind
of a "I'm better that you cause I don't need no stinking modelling
program" type or mentality. This of course has about as much validity
as the DOS vs. Windows wars of a few years ago as to which is better
to work in. So I say different strokes for different folks and leave
it at that. Work in whatever environment that makes you the most
productive and ignore any peer pressure you may feel.

-- 
Ken Tyler

See my 850+ Povray and 3D Rendering and Raytracing Links at:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html

Post a reply to this message

Of course, some of us use *both*. I use GUM (ftp.povray.org) for model
creation (very simple program- extremely intuitive) and the Pov-Ray editor for
positioning, texturing, etc.
Works great.

H.E. Day

Ken wrote:

> Larry Fontaine wrote:
> >
> > I've read a lot of posts that say people don't like modellers because
> > you can't do multiple rotates etc. Just to let you know, this is what I
> > do: I write my source directly in POV. When there's a complex object I
> > can't just measure, I use a 2-D metafile drawing program (In my case,
> > Micrografx Designer) to draw an orthographic plan of the object. When I
> > like my results, I transfer the measurements back to POV. It's also
> > great for zooming way in to check tangent lines and such.
> > This also allows for a great "cheat" of sorts--if you have a real 3-D
> > object sitting in front of you, scan it or photograph it or whatever,
> > then bring the picture into your drawing program, draw your curves over
> > the pic, delete the pic, and copy the curve measurements into POV
> > source.
> > The only thing I really can't do well is bezier patches and
> > height_fields. Height_fields for things like mountains or whatever are
> > fairly easy, but what if I want a height_field that's a perfect
> > hemisphere? Anyway, I'll leave you with this idea.
> > PS. I've always thought a modeller with hard-code POV on one side and
> > the wireframe preview on the other would be great. Then you could use
> > the tools, or just change the POV code directly and get instant results.
> > And support for multiple transforms and CSG. I've got Visual C++ and
> > Visual Basic, so maybe I could make it myself someday...
>
>   There is more to the modeller issue than simply the lack of textual
> interface. Scenes created in a modeller are often wire frame only.
> When the scene reaches a certain level of complexity all the overlapping
> wire frames makes it difficult to visualize all of the elements in the
> scene due to clutter.
>  Additionally where POV-Ray is concerned there is no one single modeller
> that supports every function and option that Pov offers. This limits
> your creativity because of the limited support. Another issue is that
> many people such as myself are still using small screen monitors. It
> is difficult to work in a modelling environment with a small monitor.
> There are many other arguments I could go into but the lack of a textual
> interface is only one of the issues at hand.
>
>   You will also note a certain amount of Pov snobbery involved with
> them that write their pov scenes in a text only environment. Kind
> of a "I'm better that you cause I don't need no stinking modelling
> program" type or mentality. This of course has about as much validity
> as the DOS vs. Windows wars of a few years ago as to which is better
> to work in. So I say different strokes for different folks and leave
> it at that. Work in whatever environment that makes you the most
> productive and ignore any peer pressure you may feel.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> See my 850+ Povray and 3D Rendering and Raytracing Links at:
> http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html

Post a reply to this message

>   There is more to the modeller issue than simply the lack of textual
> interface. Scenes created in a modeller are often wire frame only.
> When the scene reaches a certain level of complexity all the overlapping
> wire frames makes it difficult to visualize all of the elements in the
> scene due to clutter.
>  Additionally where POV-Ray is concerned there is no one single modeller
> that supports every function and option that Pov offers. This limits
> your creativity because of the limited support. Another issue is that
> many people such as myself are still using small screen monitors. It
> is difficult to work in a modelling environment with a small monitor.
> There are many other arguments I could go into but the lack of a textual
> interface is only one of the issues at hand.

What would really be cool is a Direct3D / OpenGL texture-preview
recursion/macro-supporting modeller :-) Of course, then it would cost $10000
to register...


>   You will also note a certain amount of Pov snobbery involved with
> them that write their pov scenes in a text only environment. Kind
> of a "I'm better that you cause I don't need no stinking modelling
> program" type or mentality. This of course has about as much validity
> as the DOS vs. Windows wars of a few years ago as to which is better
> to work in. So I say different strokes for different folks and leave
> it at that. Work in whatever environment that makes you the most
> productive and ignore any peer pressure you may feel.

Yes, some people do that. Personally, I think even if someone says "I'm
better", and even if it's true, it means nothing because everybody is at a
different ability level in different areas and chances are you're better than
them at a lot of stuff. Although I reserve my right to mock Joey Adams, the
kid whose favorite words are b*tch, f*ck and c*nt, thinks anything cylindrical
is a dildo, has absolutely no social skills and an IQ of at most 5. And if you
try to ignore him, he'll repeat himself over and over and follow you around
until you yell, "SHUT UP, YOU PERVERT!! I DON'T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT *****!!"
(lack of social skills evident here)

Post a reply to this message

Larry Fontaine wrote:

> >   There is more to the modeller issue than simply the lack of textual
> > interface. Scenes created in a modeller are often wire frame only.
> > When the scene reaches a certain level of complexity all the overlapping
> > wire frames makes it difficult to visualize all of the elements in the
> > scene due to clutter.
> >  Additionally where POV-Ray is concerned there is no one single modeller
> > that supports every function and option that Pov offers. This limits
> > your creativity because of the limited support. Another issue is that
> > many people such as myself are still using small screen monitors. It
> > is difficult to work in a modelling environment with a small monitor.
> > There are many other arguments I could go into but the lack of a textual
> > interface is only one of the issues at hand.
>
> What would really be cool is a Direct3D / OpenGL texture-preview
> recursion/macro-supporting modeller :-) Of course, then it would cost $10000
> to register...

Hmmmmm. Java3D would give you Direct3D & OpenGL all with one shot.    :-)

--
"My new computer's got the clocks, it rocks
But it was obsolete before I opened the box" - W.A.Y.

Post a reply to this message

H.E. Day wrote:
> 
> Of course, some of us use *both*. I use GUM (ftp.povray.org) for model
> creation (very simple program- extremely intuitive) and the Pov-Ray
> editor for positioning, texturing, etc.
> Works great.

GUM doesn't appear to be at ftp.povray.org anymore.  Might anyon know
where it can be found?

Regards,
John
-- 
ICQ: 46085459

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:

> GUM doesn't appear to be at ftp.povray.org anymore.  Might anyon know
> where it can be found?
> 
> Regards,
> John

Naturaly :)

http://ftp.tu-clausthal.de/pub/TEXT/mirror/povray/povray/utilities/modellers/gum

-- 
Ken Tyler

See my 850+ Povray and 3D Rendering and Raytracing Links at:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html

Post a reply to this message