So we have pigment_maps and normal_maps, why no finish_maps? Is there a
patch available for that? It is definitely something I'd like to see.
Perhaps in 3.5? Yeah, I know I could use a texture_map and do it that way,
but purely for consistency and ease, I don't see why a finish_map feature
can't be added. BTW, is there an official suggestion box, or is this it?

--
Paul Vanukoff
van### [at] primenetcom

Post a reply to this message

A lot more to a finish than either pigments or normals.  And since there used to
be refraction in finishes as well it was probably even less likely to be
considered before.  Finish still has ambience, diffusion, highlighting,
reflection, crand, metallic, brilliance, and I'm not sure what else but maybe
that's it.  All of those would need to be patterned together.  Probably a lot of
extra work in the programming of the source which no one had yet even begun to
do yet.  Those are my thoughts on it anyway.

Bob

"Paul Vanukoff" <van### [at] primenetcom> wrote in message
news:38a182c6@news.povray.org...
| So we have pigment_maps and normal_maps, why no finish_maps? Is there a
| patch available for that? It is definitely something I'd like to see.
| Perhaps in 3.5? Yeah, I know I could use a texture_map and do it that way,
| but purely for consistency and ease, I don't see why a finish_map feature
| can't be added. BTW, is there an official suggestion box, or is this it?
|
| --
| Paul Vanukoff
| van### [at] primenetcom
|
|

Post a reply to this message

Well, I'll admit I've not looked at the source, so I don't know how hard it
would be. But it couldn't be *that* hard I don't think. It would just be
very useful to create surfaces with varying amounts of reflection,
specularity, diffuse, etc ... If this feature ever was implemented, it
should also support using an image (gif, png, etc) as a finish modifier
(similar to a normal{bump_map} or pigment{image_map} it could also have a
finish{surface_map} or something to that effect. Like so:

#declare F_Shiny1=
finish
{
    phong 1
    reflection 0.25
    diffuse 0.85
}

#declare F_Shiny2=
finish
{
    phong 1
    reflection 0.75
    diffuse 0.65
}

finish
{    
    surface_map
    {
        gif "reflectmap.gif"
        map_type 1
        [0.0 F_Shiny1]
        [1.0 F_Shiny2]
    }   
}

That way, an image can be used as a combination reflection map, diffuse map, etc ... 

-- 
Paul Vanukoff
van### [at] primenetcom

"Bob Hughes" <omn### [at] hotmailcom?subject=PoV-News:> wrote in message
news:38a27e38@news.povray.org...
> A lot more to a finish than either pigments or normals.  And since there used to
> be refraction in finishes as well it was probably even less likely to be
> considered before.  Finish still has ambience, diffusion, highlighting,
> reflection, crand, metallic, brilliance, and I'm not sure what else but maybe
> that's it.  All of those would need to be patterned together.  Probably a lot of
> extra work in the programming of the source which no one had yet even begun to
> do yet.  Those are my thoughts on it anyway.
> 
> Bob
> 
> "Paul Vanukoff" <van### [at] primenetcom> wrote in message
> news:38a182c6@news.povray.org...
> | So we have pigment_maps and normal_maps, why no finish_maps? Is there a
> | patch available for that? It is definitely something I'd like to see.
> | Perhaps in 3.5? Yeah, I know I could use a texture_map and do it that way,
> | but purely for consistency and ease, I don't see why a finish_map feature
> | can't be added. BTW, is ther
e an official suggestion box, or is this it?
> |
> | --
> | Paul Vanukoff
> | van### [at] primenetcom
> |
> |
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Good idea.. Lets see what Ken has to say.
Ambis


"Paul Vanukoff" <van### [at] primenetcom> wrote in message
news:38a182c6@news.povray.org...
> So we have pigment_maps and normal_maps, why no finish_maps? Is there a
> patch available for that? It is definitely something I'd like to see.
> Perhaps in 3.5? Yeah, I know I could use a texture_map and do it that way,
> but purely for consistency and ease, I don't see why a finish_map feature
> can't be added. BTW, is there an official suggestion box, or is this it?
>
> --
> Paul Vanukoff
> van### [at] primenetcom
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Bob Hughes wrote:

> A lot more to a finish than either pigments or normals.  And since there used to
> be refraction in finishes as well it was probably even less likely to be
> considered before.  Finish still has ambience, diffusion, highlighting,
> reflection, crand, metallic, brilliance, and I'm not sure what else but maybe
> that's it.  All of those would need to be patterned together.  Probably a lot of
> extra work in the programming of the source which no one had yet even begun to
> do yet.  Those are my thoughts on it anyway.

What's so hard about that? I could see the problem if refraction was included, but
that's interior now. Besides you can already do it with a texture map so most of the
code is probably already written.
Of course I don't know what I'm talking about.

--
___     ______________________________________________________
 | \     |_                 <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
 |_/avid |ontaine               http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/

"Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come" -Beatles

Post a reply to this message

David Fontaine wrote:

>What's so hard about that? I could see the problem if refraction was
included, but
>that's interior now. Besides you can already do it with a texture map so
most of the
>code is probably already written.


Up further contemplation, it would also be nice to have specular_map,
roughness_map, diffuse_map, reflection_map, phong_map, etc ... basically it
would be nice to be able to map all the finish attributes. Using built-in
patterns, or with a grayscale image. Seriously is there a person(s) to send
suggestions to? Can we have a vote on this? Who else would be interested in
these capabilities?

--
Paul Vanukoff
van### [at] primenetcom
http://www.primenet.com/~vanukoff/povray/

Post a reply to this message

Paul Vanukoff wrote:

> Seriously is there a person(s) to send suggestions to?

This is where the POV-Ray Technical Assistance Group can play a role.
We are around to hear peoples suggestions for the program. Like any
other POV-Ray user however we can only make your wishes known to the
POV-Team and cannot guarantee that they will be interested in what
you propose. You can read more about what the TAG's role is and how
to contact the individual TAG members by following this link -

http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/pov-tag.txt

Since I am one of the TAG members your suggestion has been heard.
If you can sell me and the other TAG members on it we will try to
sell the POV-Team on it :)


> Can we have a vote on this?

The POV-Team as far as I know only adds new features that really
interest them, there is a great public outcry for, or someone
sends in a patch that is too good to pass up. There is no voting
system in place and I doubt there will be one at any time soon.


> Who else would be interested in these capabilities?

Good question --

Some suggestions, good news, and bad news:

1.) If you really want a new feature added to the program it is best if
    you make an attempt to discuss it here in these groups - as you are
    doing now. Discussions on new features have the benefit that they give
    a greater number of people a chance to comment on the feasibility of
    the new feature as well as it gives us a gauge of how many people
    would actually be interested in it. If no one is getting excited
    about your proposal then there is little chance it will be added
    any time soon (see also 4).

2.) Present your suggestion in such a way that it is obvious what the
    feature should do functionally and what benefit it will have by
    adding it to the program. Simply saying "I want finish_map" added
    to the program is not sufficient to sell the feature to the POV-Team.

3.) Ideally you will get someone interested enough that they will write
    a patch for the new feature. Even better if you are a programmer and
    can do it yourself. If you have seen this feature in another program
    or have read a research paper on it then submit a URL so that it can
    be referenced for further information.

4.) Even though you or someone else has not submitted a patch if your
    suggestion is good enough, and there is enough popular response
    to it, the TAG members will at a minimum try to get the POV-Team
    excited about the new feature. If the POV-Team gets excited enough
    they will spend the time to add the feature to POV-Ray themselves.
    The POV-Team has no shortage of things they would like to add to
    the program already !

5.) You should be aware that many of the POV-Ray developers are reading
    the messages in these groups regularly and have already seen your
    suggestion (Ron Parker, Nathan Kopp e.g.). Add to that they have 
    likely heard it before and it might already be on their list of
    things to do. What the priority for new feature X will be is
    anybody's guess.

6.) Sometimes a suggested feature may cause serious problems with existing
    features, may require a serious rewrite or additions to existing code
    that would make it difficult to implement, or will jeopardize backward
    compatibility. In these cases a suggested feature may have to wait for
    a later version of POV-Ray before it can added or it may never be added
    if it causes too many problems.

-- 
Ken Tyler -  1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

Paul Vanukoff wrote:
>Up further contemplation, it would also be nice to have specular_map,
>roughness_map, diffuse_map, reflection_map, phong_map, etc ... basically
>it would be nice to be able to map all the finish attributes. 

Something like :
finish {
   wood 
   turbulence 0.3
   finish_map {
      [0.5, finish {ambient 0.3 phong 0.8 phong_size 60}]
      [0.5, finish {diffuse 0.75 phong 0.2 phong_size 20}]
      [1.0, finish {Dull}]
   }
}

I'd realy like to have this feature. Although probably everything can be 
done with the texture_map, it would make POV-life much easier.

Ingo

-- 
Photography: http://members.home.nl/ingoogni/
Pov-Ray    : http://members.home.nl/seed7/

Post a reply to this message

Thanks for the detailed and informative response. I will see if I can come
up with some influential examples and other such things you've suggested.
Maybe I'll even dust off my C books (and my brain, it's been so long) and
try to code it myself even ;D


--
Paul Vanukoff
van### [at] primenetcom


"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
news:38A4DC31.877CCE8C@pacbell.net...

> [ lots of useful information snipped ]

> --
> Ken Tyler -  1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
> http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

>Something like :
>finish {
>   wood
>   turbulence 0.3
>   finish_map {
>      [0.5, finish {ambient 0.3 phong 0.8 phong_size 60}]
>      [0.5, finish {diffuse 0.75 phong 0.2 phong_size 20}]
>      [1.0, finish {Dull}]
>   }
>}


I hope you mean:

finish {
   wood
   turbulence 0.3
   finish_map {
      [0.5 ambient 0.3 phong 0.8 phong_size 60]
      [0.5 diffuse 0.75 phong 0.2 phong_size 20]
      [1.0 Dull]
   }
}

Post a reply to this message