The Ellis Family <cel### [at] voyageurca> wrote...

> #2. Lightflow is vastly superior to PovRay in certain areas (just look
> at Lightflow's surface engine), and I think PovRay would definately
> benefit from a merger of some sort.

That is an interesting idea, though I'm not sure if the author of Lightflow
would feel the same way.  If I understand correctly, Lightflow Tech is a
for-profit company, and therefore the technology in the Lightflow engine is
probably intended to be kept within the company.  If Mr. Pantaleoni would
like to share his knowledge with us, I for one would be interested.

> Don't get me wrong, I like PovRay, but I sense a growing lack of
> interest amongst members of the PovTeam (of coarse, I could be way off
> on this).

Back a few years ago, the team appeared to experience burnout (I say this
from what I observed from the outside at that time), which was in-part
caused by some rude actions on the part of the internet community.  Since
then, the attitudes within the team have changed, and there is now a true
desire to see POV grow and mature.

> Also, PovRay *needs* an accessible api (I realize that this
> would be difficult to implement in a portable way)

The current philosophy of POV is to transfer all scene data to the rendering
engine via the scene definition language.  There are both pros and cons to
this approach.  You will need to back up your claim (and address a number of
important issues) before you can convince everyone that POV *needs* an
accessible API.

Important issues:
1) cross-platform compatibility
2) consistent scene descriptions (more than one file format would be bad)
3) ease-of-use - POV is designed first for artists, then for programmers

> And, most importantly, there needs to be
> more interaction between the PovTeam and the Pov community.

We are addressing this issue through the POV Technical Assistance Group
(TAG).

> Every 2 or
> 3 weeks, the PovTeam could report on the progress of the next release
> (is this too much to ask?).

This may be possible, but we wish to avoid vaporware.  Also, because our
Real Lives get in the way of POV development, we don't want to promise a
release on a certain date and then not be able to fulfil that.  Such action
could cause us to get more rude responses from the internet community (not
necessarily those who read these groups), which could cause the POV-Team to
feel discouraged again.  And I think we all agree that such a thing would be
bad.

-Nathan Kopp

I speak for myself and not for the POV-Team.

Post a reply to this message

Fabien Mosen <fab### [at] skynetbe> wrote...
> (but I realize that it can't be as simple as that, given, amongst other
> issues, that some people develops in MegaPOV _and_ in the POV-Team...)

Actually, it has been good that I have been able to work with both MegaPov
and POV 3.5.  It made it easier to get MegaPov features into POV 3.5.  Also,
we really wish to prevent a "split" in POV development (as has been
happening with Linux development).  Because I have been able to keep an eye
on both sides (official 3.5 and unofficial MegaPov), it has helped a lot to
prevent such a split.

-Nathan Kopp

I speak for myself and not for the POV-Team.

Post a reply to this message

Nathan Kopp wrote:

> > And, most importantly, there needs to be
> > more interaction between the PovTeam and the Pov community.
> 
> We are addressing this issue through the POV Technical Assistance Group
> (TAG).

Along with the co-operation of the TAG the POV-Team themselves
are not altogether inactive in these groups. Within the last 7
days for example we have seen messages posted from:

Chris     Cason       - The POV-Team Co-ordinator
Nathan    Kopp        - Programmer and Windows    developer
Ron       Parker      - Programmer and Windows    developer
Thorsten  Froehlich   - Programmer and Macintosh  developer
Mark      Gordon      - Programmer and Unix/Linux developer
Alan      Kong        - POV-Team Member
Alexander Enzmann     - POV-Team Member (semi-retired)
Lutz      Kretzschmar - POV-Team Member
Thomas    Baier       - POV-Team Member

I would dare say that is pretty active  involvement in the POV-Ray
community by members of the POV-Team. They should be commended for
their active involvement in these groups rather than critisized for
their lack of it.

-- 
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

Just an idea..
-what about making shareware like moray ?
-buy with this money "programming-time" for "unimportant or easy to do"
features..
jurek

Post a reply to this message

In article <3962CC0D.4FC703A7@yahoo.com> , jurek <jur### [at] yahoocom>  
wrote:

> -what about making shareware like moray ?
> -buy with this money "programming-time" for "unimportant or easy to do"
> features..

Then you could buy a commercial software in the first place!

Maybe this answer, written a long time ago by Eduard Schwan (POV-Ray Mac
developer for nine years) and currently included in the Mac OS documentation
can explain this much better:

>>

Why does the team do this for free?
Here's a letter I sent somebody long ago to explain the mission of the team:

"Thank you very much for your interest in compensating us team members
somehow, and I personally appreciate your excitement and enthusiasm, as do
the other team members, and in fact, that's mostly what we live for!  But as
far as any kind of compensation goes, it turns out to be a really difficult
thing to deal with *fairly*.  First, we are spread all over the world, USA,
Germany, Holland, Australia, Denmark, etc...  Second of all, different team
members have been on "the team" for different lengths of time and
contributed different amounts of work.  I for example, have been on the team
for several years, but only contributed a couple of things to the main
cross-platform POV-Ray engine (most notably the Mosaic Preview.)  I am the
Mac OS team member, and have lately been single-handedly building the Mac OS
front-end for POV-Ray.  Third, this is being run as a cooperative
distributed hobby, not a for-profit business.  So let's say we pour a bunch
of money into a pot somewhere, who gets what percentage? Do I get the same
percentage as Chris Young who has put more work into the project in the past
few months than I have in the past few years?  Do we all get free Microsoft
Windows compilers, useless to me and the Unix guys. Mostly what happens is
our nice team comeraderie turns into a bitter feud for divvying up the
spoils (BTW, this is spoken from direct team experience from long ago.)  So
instead, each of us uses the ray tracer to make friends, show off, create
cool movies, write and sell books and CD-ROMs, etc.  Since the team treats
this as a spare time fun activity, the joy we get comes from lots of people
doing great things with POV-Ray, simple as that.  This also explains why it
takes some time for us to come out with new versions... we are working on it
in what little time there is between career and family.

Hopefully this helps explain some of the problems involved in getting money
for a team hobby.  Also, please note that this is my personal set of
opinions and observations as a POV-Ray Team member, but I do not speak for
any other team members or the team as a whole.  Other team members may feel
differently, and that is part of what makes this such a wonderful group of
people to work with!

Happy Ray Tracing, and go show POV-Ray to your friends and coworkers! Eduard
Schwan -- POV-Ray Team Mac Dude"

<<


     Thorsten


____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich
e-mail: mac### [at] povrayorg

I am a member of the POV-Ray Team.
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 09:25:05 +0200 "Thorsten Froehlich"
<tho### [at] trfde> wrote:

<snip..>
>Happy Ray Tracing, and go show POV-Ray to your friends and coworkers! Eduard
>Schwan -- POV-Ray Team Mac Dude


(Real Life) projects, Thorsten. I don't mind saying this in public <s>.

-- 
Alan - ako### [at] povrayorg - a k o n g <at> p o v r a y <dot> o r g
http://www.povray.org - Home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer

Post a reply to this message

Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> 

> In article <39625EB9.C0531809@gmx.de> , Stefan Moch <st_### [at] gmxde>  wro
te:
> 

> > i think it is better to have _BOTH_ solutions: scene description
> > language and api. the api is useful to work with other programs. on
> > unix-systems you can use pipes, you do not need to save the (maybe
> > huge??) scene you can simply put the pov-file from standardoutput of
> > your program to the standardinput of povray.
> 

> I think this is already possible with the Unix version of POV-Ray.

Yes, of course.

But it is not possible on other operating systems, and (believe me or
not) I know a lot of people with a non-unix os. And even on unix the api
may sometimes be the better way then piping the pov-file.
The api has also another advantage (an advantage for the
pov-developers!). You can make pov more modular. The programmers who
write the scene-file parser use everytime the same api and the
programmers who work on the renderer can add new rendering techniques,
etc.. In the scene-file parser only a few things need to be changed (to
find out wich rendering technique the user want and tell it the
renderer).

cu Stefan
-- 

"All my friends and I are crazy.  That's the only thing that keeps us
sane."

Post a reply to this message

Nathan Kopp wrote:
> 
> > Also, PovRay *needs* an accessible api (I realize that this
> > would be difficult to implement in a portable way)
> 
> The current philosophy of POV is to transfer all scene data to the rendering
> engine via the scene definition language.  There are both pros and cons to
> this approach.  You will need to back up your claim (and address a number of
> important issues) before you can convince everyone that POV *needs* an
> accessible API.

as i wrote in an article above: why not both solutions?
the scene-file for the artists, and the api for other programs. why not
let the scene-file parser simply call the api. the code can be more
modular and clearer.

the cross-platform thing:
well on systems like msdos (and other systems supported by pov?) you
cannot make dynamic linked shared libaries. but if someone on these
platforms *really* needs the api: static linking is not a good solution,
but it is a solution!

cu stefan
-- 
"All my friends and I are crazy.  That's the only thing that keeps us
sane."

Post a reply to this message

"The Ellis Family" <cel### [at] voyageurca> wrote in message
news:396### [at] spamlesshotmailcom...
> #1. Very few people (actually, none that I know of) actually make money
> using PovRay and/or Moray. In fact, most people seem to prefer to
> *share* their images/source with the rest of the Pov community.

I'll probably sell pov images some day, as part of an architectural project
(would be kind of hard to explain: yes, I designed this and was paid for the
project and all the drawings/blue-prints/images but the images done with
Pov...)


> #2. Lightflow is vastly superior to PovRay in certain areas (just look
> at Lightflow's surface engine), and I think PovRay would definately
> benefit from a merger of some sort.

Mmmh, I do not know about Lightflow, but I think the operative words here
are "in certain areas".


> #3. Given the huge delay between releases, I think it's safe to say the
> PovTeam is in need of more programmers. And, let's face it, the author
> of Lightflow has, in a mere 5 years, single handedly implemented
> features (such as distributed rendering, an accessible api, and *real*
> radiosity) that the PovTeam can only dream about (no offense to the
> PovTeam intended; the entire Pov community appreciates their efforts).
Maybe. But: must pov's nature change to get more programmers?
> Don't get me wrong, I like PovRay, but I sense a growing lack of
> interest amongst members of the PovTeam (of coarse, I could be way off
> on this).

I do not sense this. I think PovTeam's members are doing a _great_ work in
their free time, but understandably want to retain some control on their rl.
I respect that and I think it will prove beneficial in the long term.


> Also, PovRay *needs* an accessible api (I realize that this
> would be difficult to implement in a portable way), and perhaps this api
> could be accessed via Python.

I hate writing this, but this has been discussed many, many times. Maybe it
should be included in a FAQ? (Maybe it already is and I missed it?)


> And, most importantly, there needs to be
> more interaction between the PovTeam and the Pov community. Every 2 or
> 3 weeks, the PovTeam could report on the progress of the next release
> (is this too much to ask?).

I do not like that idea for the following reasons:
* It put pressure on the PovTeam, a pressure I would not like were I in
their shoes;
* No surprise with a new release;
* It would make difficult to test features and eventually removing them when
they do not work as well as planned;
* It would become difficult to delay a release for fine-tuning;
* People would probably ask for more intermediate release, which would ask
for more work;
* Different patched Povs somehow fill this need.


>Of coarse, this is all just imho;-)

So it is here ;-)

Povingly,


Philippe

Post a reply to this message

Hy,
you misunderstood me.
I did not intend to buy "programming-time" from you (i think, if you all have
jobs and familiy, there isn't any time anymore to sell..)
I thought of buying "programming-time" from an independent company.
Jurek

Post a reply to this message