Bob Hughes wrote:
> 
> Yikes.  No iso-surface part of the Official POV-Ray 3.5?  That's got
> to hurt.

  If Ron doesn't correct me here there are parts of the ISO-Surface patch
that can be ported without having to use the .dll files in question.

-- 
Ken Tyler
1100+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html

Post a reply to this message

Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
:   If Ron doesn't correct me here there are parts of the ISO-Surface patch
: that can be ported without having to use the .dll files in question.

  I doubt that there's anything in those dll's that can't be written in
ANSI C.
  He said that the parts which use dll's will be eliminated. He didn't say
that those parts will not be replaced with ANSI C equivalents...

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

In article <37eb03e4@news.povray.org> , "Bob Hughes" <inv### [at] aolcom> 
wrote:

> Yikes.  No iso-surface part of the Official POV-Ray 3.5?  That's got
> to hurt.

Why do you assume this?  "We will likely eliminate that part of the patch."
does obviously *not* mean we eliminate the whole patch, does it???
Sorry for sounding a bit unfriendly, but I don't think wild rumors or
assumptions will help you find out what POV-Ray 3.5 can or will be able to
do :-)   And specifically the iso-surface issue has come up and been
clarified several times by now ... if even the little bit of information
that there will be a 3.5 next and a few general issues about it create such
a lot of confusuion, maybe for 4.0 there should be no details available in
advance?


     Thorsten


PS: This is my _own_ opinion, I do not speak (write) for the team!


____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany

Post a reply to this message

Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> maybe for 4.0 there should be no details available in advance?
> 
>      Thorsten

Thorsten that would be cruel and inhuman punishment : {

I promise not to spread any(more?) rumors.

-- 
Ken Tyler 

Over 1100 Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html

Post a reply to this message

Aeehhmm,
Povray 4.0 will be written in python, will have support for PentiumIII
and Athlon as well as a complete XML/XSL capable web browser. Also
included is support for cell phone modems and there will be a free offer
for a ASIC speeding up parsing times by a factor of 1000 just by lying
on the table.

Now here we have the difference between rumors and interest with some
misunderstandings.
The less people know, the more phantasy comes into play. If the povteam
leaves the folks just sitting there drooling, it's going to be a mess.

I found the way for 3.5 just all right. One statement giving information
about what is in their heads, and why.

Axel

Post a reply to this message

AFAIK, 4.0 will just be a rewrite to reconstruct the base of POV-Ray to be
easier to upgrade and add features to. The rewrite will be in C++. Let's
just hope it makes rendering faster than C has been able to. ( I still say
ASM is the way to go! ;)

Post a reply to this message

TonyB wrote:
> 
> AFAIK, 4.0 will just be a rewrite to reconstruct the base of POV-Ray to be
> easier to upgrade and add features to. The rewrite will be in C++. Let's
> just hope it makes rendering faster than C has been able to. ( I still say
> ASM is the way to go! ;)

If you write the ASM for my R5000 processor I will agree. Otherwise I
will continue to believe that the compilers are optimizing in a fashion
which is good enough for everyone. 
I don't think that C++ will make the render faster but I think it might
make programming faster which is something I would like to see too. :-)

Marc
-- 
Marc Schimmler

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 22:12:25 -0700, Ken wrote:
>
>
>Bob Hughes wrote:
>> 
>> Yikes.  No iso-surface part of the Official POV-Ray 3.5?  That's got
>> to hurt.
>
>  If Ron doesn't correct me here there are parts of the ISO-Surface patch
>that can be ported without having to use the .dll files in question.

Quite.  Most people aren't using the stuff in the DLLs anyway, but the
MSDOS version of the superpatch has all the functionality without any
DLLs.  The only things that are in DLLs are the "library" functions, 
which could easily be done as internal functions a la "mesh" and "helix".

Post a reply to this message

Paranoia, that's it... sorry I spoke abruptly Thorsten.  I saw that
part of the quote from Chris Cason which Ken had posted and
immediately began to think of what life would be like having to always
use the Super Patch instead of a Official POV-Ray.  Sorry Ron, or more
appropriately the many contributors to S.P., I'm not saying I don't
care for S.P. of course  : )
Hmmm, does the frequently-asked-questions group have any posts
regarding 3.5?  A while back I unsubscribed to that, among others, to
cut down on news retrieval.  Don't think anything ever stops the
rumors from roaming though.

Bob

Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in message
news:37eb28a0@news.povray.org...
> In article <37eb03e4@news.povray.org> , "Bob Hughes"
<inv### [at] aolcom>
> wrote:
>
> > Yikes.  No iso-surface part of the Official POV-Ray 3.5?  That's
got
> > to hurt.
>
> Why do you assume this?  "We will likely eliminate that part of the
patch."
> does obviously *not* mean we eliminate the whole patch, does it???
> Sorry for sounding a bit unfriendly, but I don't think wild rumors
or
> assumptions will help you find out what POV-Ray 3.5 can or will be
able to
> do :-)   And specifically the iso-surface issue has come up and been
> clarified several times by now ... if even the little bit of
information
> that there will be a 3.5 next and a few general issues about it
create such
> a lot of confusuion, maybe for 4.0 there should be no details
available in
> advance?
>
>
>      Thorsten
>
>
> PS: This is my _own_ opinion, I do not speak (write) for the team!
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany

Post a reply to this message

> Quite.  Most people aren't using the stuff in the DLLs anyway, but the
> MSDOS version of the superpatch has all the functionality without any
> DLLs.  The only things that are in DLLs are the "library" functions,
> which could easily be done as internal functions a la "mesh" and "helix".


I think I mentioned before that I couldn't get the superpatch to compile on
VC++ 5, so I used parts of the DOS superpatch sources.  So the minipatch
doesn't use the dlls either.

-Mike

Post a reply to this message