"Simen Kvaal" <sim### [at] studentmatnatuiono> wrote in message
news:394f3044$1@news.povray.org...

> I'm also sick and tired of the Comic Sans (TM) font. This font is
over-used
> and should be avoided at all cost. I must say that in this context, it
works
> better than in other places I've seen, though. There are so many good,
> freeware fonts out there, so finding something _a bit_ more original
> shouldn't be any problem.
>

IIRC comic sans is a default style-sheet font, hence its apparent over-use.
Where is comic sans showing up? (I can't see it anywhere, which makes me
think I'm defaulting to another font) - oh, wait, do you mean on the menu
bar?

What seems a little odd (apart from the various screen-res issues and
babe-alert raised by others), is that the style-sheet settings are embedded
in each page rather than being acquired from a separate file. This will make
modifications to the page more fiddly IMHO.

Apart from that, I quite like it dark. My only feeling is that if you are
going dark, then go black (or purple, hell, anything but brown).

Post a reply to this message

In article <394f4df9$1@news.povray.org> , "Tom Melly" 
<tom### [at] tomandluf9couk> wrote:

> This will make
> modifications to the page more fiddly IMHO.

There are usually a lot of things you can't see on a page when you receive
it:  Server side includes allow you to put a page together just like POV-Ray
scene #declare and #include.  In this sense server side scripting would add
#macro capability :-)
While only few web space providers offer it for free, if you own the server
(or pay enough for your web space) it is no problem.


    Thorsten

Post a reply to this message

Mark Gordon wrote:

> Rune wrote:
> > Some more clothes would be appropriate...
> Agreed.  Realistic cloth makes for very impressive graphics.
> So ... any volunteers to model her some more modest clothing?

The latest Poser models are bundled with clothes and there are many
other freely available on the various Poser sites. Granted, it looks
like the standard Posette wears nothing but see-through lingerie, but
with a little searching more "modest" clothes can be found.
I have a scuba diver suit, for instance. This shouldn't be too
offending...

G.

Post a reply to this message

"Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapginrafr> wrote in message
news:394F773A.32084ECD@inapg.inra.fr...

> I have a scuba diver suit, for instance. This shouldn't be too
> offending...
>

I'm still recovering from the notion that young people might be put off a
povray by the sight of scantily clad females....

Post a reply to this message

"Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandluf9couk> wrote in message
news:394f7c88$1@news.povray.org...
> "Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapginrafr> wrote in message
> news:394F773A.32084ECD@inapg.inra.fr...
>
> > I have a scuba diver suit, for instance. This shouldn't be too
> > offending...
> >
>
> I'm still recovering from the notion that young people might be put off a
> povray by the sight of scantily clad females....
>

    I still recovering from the fact that _anyone_ would be put off povray
by the sight of _rendered_ scantily clad females... Kind of implies they're
put off by a whole host of other art forms...

--
Scott Hill. (sco### [at] innocentcom)
Software Engineer.
Author of Pandora's Box (coming to a web page soon(ish)).

*Everything in this post is IMO.*

Post a reply to this message

"Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapginrafr> wrote in message
news:394E712F.F6324D56@inapg.inra.fr...
> Jerry wrote:
>
> > I thought the Poser girl would have been better if she were linked to a
> > description of how to do this in POV.
>
> For the record, I've written a tutorial about this that should be
available
> soon... next week if everything goes according to plan.
>

    Cool. Are there any plans for further images & tutorials in the future ?
I've been thinking about this a bit and it shouldn't be too difficult to
achieve - there's a whole community of experienced POV users right here,
regularly contributing help, advice and tutorials - I'm sure there's more
than enough talent here to produce regular tutorials on POV's features, a
lot could be done with what information is already available 'out there' (of
course then you've got the issue of getting permission to use stuff).

--
Scott Hill. (sco### [at] innocentcom)
Software Engineer.
Author of Pandora's Box (coming to a web page soon(ish)).

*Everything in this post is IMO.*

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   The point is to show the rendering quality, not the modelling quality,
> since povray is a renderer, not a modeller.
>

Sez who? Speak for
yourself!http://www.geocities.com/pterandon/photos/povraystyleface.jpg

Personally I find a Poser-produced collection of dxf's more 'offensive' than an
sPatch-produced collection of patches, when touting what Pov can do.

Post a reply to this message

Thorsten Froehlich wrote:

> This is contrary to what any usability expert will tell you.  People want to
> know where they are and what the site is about.  The main page of any site
> is the most essential and apparently very important for the success of a
> site.
> If you want to know about how web design should be to work best, check out
> <www.useit.com>.

Dogbert wags his tail.........

Post a reply to this message

"Simen Kvaal" <sim### [at] studentmatnatuiono> wrote in message
news:394f2e79@news.povray.org...
> OH THAT WOMAN ANNOYS ME!
>
> - It scares people away, because of the semi-nudity.

People aren't that Victorian, surely?...

> - It's so un-povish.

Meaning it's not made of a load of primatives stuck together?  Define what a
POV image looks like.

> - It's ugly.

It could be worse...

> No, seriously. I think that having a semi-nude model not even generated in
> Povray on the front page; splashing in your face like that can scare some
> people away; especially younger people. And _I'd_ doubt the seriousness of
> the product.

Sorry, but I really don't see it scaring away younger people... unless they
were rather sheltered 8 year olds or something, but in which case I doubt
they'd be too interested in POV development in any case.  Come on, be
realistic!

> And certainly no-one wants to claim that this is made in Povray. Rendered,
> perhaps, but that's not good enough; whatever reason the designer had to
put
> it up.

Why isn't it good enough?  Do we want to say "if you want to make any type
of image with POV, you've got to read the manual from cover to cover and
learn plenty of POV script"?  Or do we perhaps want to show a more complete
range of possibilities, which, surprisingly enough, does actually allow for
external design too ~without~ hand coding.  It's true.  Not everyone gets
their pleasures from POV by hand-coding every pixel themselves - some might
even argue it allows more time for creativity.

> And it's not a very pretty woman, either. Too skinny. That kind of woman
> that makes girls try to loose weight, and so on. I mean it.

Doesn't the suggestion of adding a fatter model to povray.org to discourage
teenage dieting sound just a little silly to you?  I very much doubt whether
a single teenage girl would intentionally visit the site anyway.


Sorry, I don't mean to take it all out on you but I've got a little fed up
of reading some of the complaints about that one image - I really didn't
think the POV community were quite so... erm... old, boring and dull (to put
it frankly).  With some, apparently increasingly rare, exceptions of course.
I don't mean to offend anyone (though quite obviously this post would have
done in any case) but it's all just a little frustrating.


Matt

Post a reply to this message

["Matthew Bennett" <ben### [at] btinternetcom>]
| People aren't that Victorian, surely?...

No but it looks pretty cheezy. POV-Ray doesn't need pictures of
scantily clad women to sell itself. Isn't the POV-Ray community
dominated by men? Is something we want? Doesn the semi-nude women help
in this regard?

But what really settles the issue for me is that she looks totally
misplaced, even though I get the nagging suspicion that povray.org's
new brown pallette was made to suit the woman, and not vice versa. 
She makes the page 200-something pixels wider, and she ain't worth it.

-- 
Never attribute to malice that which 
can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Post a reply to this message