How hard could it be to have POV primitives come with default values? So
that if you simply wrote box{} you would get an unpigmented box of unit size
at the origin. Since most people use a unit, at origin object, then scale
and translate, it could save tons of typing.

    Of course they should be able to be over-rode...

    Most of the reason I use the insert menu is so that I don't have to type
in the default values myself. Not sure how that would work on cones
though...

Post a reply to this message

Bill DeWitt wrote:
> 
>     How hard could it be to have POV primitives come with default values? So
> that if you simply wrote box{} you would get an unpigmented box of unit size
> at the origin. Since most people use a unit, at origin object, then scale
> and translate, it could save tons of typing.

Hum....  I do get your point and in some cases it could be a good idea,
but

box {
    scale < 2, 2, 2 >
    translate < 5, 5, 5 >
}

is actually more characters than

box {
    < 5, 5, 5 >
    < 7, 7, 7 >
}

> 
>     Of course they should be able to be over-rode...
> 

Of course, what's the use of default values if they can't be
over-ridden?

>     Most of the reason I use the insert menu is so that I don't have to type
> in the default values myself. Not sure how that would work on cones
> though...

Call me old school, but i prefer typing than getting my and hand over to
the mouse and select primitives from the menu.

Something I'd like to be able to do is automatically place objects
relative to others without having to do all the trig myself, but I guess
that could go in a modeler.  The POV-team probably has enough headaches
to resolve as it is.

-- 
Francois Labreque | The surest sign of the existence of extra-
     flabreq      | terrestrial intelligence is that they never
        @         | bothered to come down here and visit us!
  attglobal.net                                  - Calvin

Post a reply to this message

"Francois Labreque" <fla### [at] attglobalnet> wrote :
>
> Hum....  I do get your point and in some cases it could be a good idea,
> but
>
> box {
>     scale < 2, 2, 2 >
>     translate < 5, 5, 5 >
> }
>
> is actually more characters than
>
> box {
>     < 5, 5, 5 >
>     < 7, 7, 7 >
> }
>

    True, but how often do you do things like that? I almost -always- make
objects at origin then scale and translate. The few times I don't are
usually when I want to connect a cylinder or cone to certain points.

Post a reply to this message

Bill DeWitt wrote:
> 
> "Francois Labreque" <fla### [at] attglobalnet> wrote :
> >
> > Hum....  I do get your point and in some cases it could be a good idea,
> > but
> >
> > box {
> >     scale < 2, 2, 2 >
> >     translate < 5, 5, 5 >
> > }
> >
> > is actually more characters than
> >
> > box {
> >     < 5, 5, 5 >
> >     < 7, 7, 7 >
> > }
> >
> 
>     True, but how often do you do things like that? I almost -always- make
> objects at origin then scale and translate. The few times I don't are
> usually when I want to connect a cylinder or cone to certain points.

I nearly always create objects at their final size, apart from non equal
scaling.
But then I'd do sphere{0,5 scale<1,2,1>} rather than sphere{0,1
scale<5,10,5>}

PoD.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 12 Mar 2000 07:56:08 -0500, Bill DeWitt wrote:
>Since most people use a unit, at origin object, then scale
>and translate, it could save tons of typing.

Who is this "most people" you talk about?  Most modelers do that, but
I would think most people make the box where they want it.  I know I
do.

Post a reply to this message

Ron Parker wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Mar 2000 07:56:08 -0500, Bill DeWitt wrote:
> >Since most people use a unit, at origin object, then scale
> >and translate, it could save tons of typing.
>
> Who is this "most people" you talk about?  Most modelers do that, but
> I would think most people make the box where they want it.  I know I
> do.

One of the major reasons that I use Moray, instead of hand coding, is
that I can't get my brane to work in the mode that will understand the
box code.

No matter how much I work on it, it's always a struggle. Having a default
I can scale is easier to understand. I can easily visualize a box scaled
to <1, 2, 5>, but a box defined by corners <-0.5, -1, -2.5>  <0.5, 1,
2.5> is not something I can see in my mind.

Post a reply to this message

Simon de Vet wrote:

> No matter how much I work on it, it's always a struggle. Having a default
> I can scale is easier to understand. I can easily visualize a box scaled
> to <1, 2, 5>, but a box defined by corners <-0.5, -1, -2.5>  <0.5, 1,
> 2.5> is not something I can see in my mind.

Both methods require repetitious use before you become comfortable with
them. When I was first learning Pov I bounced back and forth between
various modellers I was evaluating and hand coding. Personally I found
more power in the hand coding environment but had I found a modeller
I was comfortable with I might have swung the other way. Regardless
I still think that with practice you would learn to use the various
control points of a box with the same ease that you do the scale feature
in your modeller of choice.

Besides defining a unit box is no more difficult than

box{-.5,.5}

Defining a unit sphere

sphere{0,1}

Defining unit cylinders you have a choice of which axis to align it to

cylinder {x*-.5, x*.5, 1}
cylinder {y*-.5, y*.5, 1}
cylinder {z*-.5, z*.5, 1}

etc.

-- 
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

Ron Parker wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 12 Mar 2000 07:56:08 -0500, Bill DeWitt wrote:
> >Since most people use a unit, at origin object, then scale
> >and translate, it could save tons of typing.
> 
> Who is this "most people" you talk about?  Most modelers do that, but
> I would think most people make the box where they want it.  I know I
> do.

The place where this "feature" of all modellers I've seen gets me is
with the cylinder.  Whenever I use a cylinder, it's along the lines of

  cylinder { <3,2,4>,<1,1,3>,.5 }

which with most modellers has to be done by calculating the scaling and
rotation outside of the program, and then entering them by hand.  This
is why I don't use them.

Regards,
John
-- 
ICQ: 46085459

Post a reply to this message

Francois Labreque wrote:

> box {
>     scale < 2, 2, 2 >
>     translate < 5, 5, 5 >
> }
>
> is actually more characters than
>
> box {
>     < 5, 5, 5 >
>     < 7, 7, 7 >
> }

or you could do box { 5 7 } :-)

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

"The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad." -Dali

Post a reply to this message

"Ron Parker" <ron### [at] povrayorg> wrote :
>
> Who is this "most people" you talk about?  Most modelers do that, but
> I would think most people make the box where they want it.  I know I
> do.
>

    Perhaps I am mistaken. I supposed that since the docs recommend it, new
users are often told to do it, and it make sense to do so in terms of
declarations, that most people would do so.

    Personally, BTW, I don't care about character count. My insert menu box
looks like:

/////////////// box ////////////////////////
box {
     < -0.5, -0.5, -0.5 >,
     <  0.5,  0.5,  0.5 >
     scale      < 1.0, 1.0, 1.0 >
     rotate     < 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 >
     translate  < 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 >
     texture { DefaultTexture }
        } // end box

    ... I do it like this so that I have to type less. I mouse delete
anything I don't need and modify the rest to my requirements.

       If I am putting it in a loop or something I will chop it down, but
otherwise...

Post a reply to this message