Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
: 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.

  Perhaps the problem is that people don't know/remember who is a povteam
member and who isn't, so their posts don't stand out of the mass?

-- 
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

Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
: I don't know about fancy APIs but tesselation would be a useful
: feature.

  But worth the efforts?

-- 
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 <3964aedf@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:

>   Perhaps the problem is that people don't know/remember who is a povteam
> member and who isn't, so their posts don't stand out of the mass?

So you are suggesting we put ***POV-TEAM*** in our name? ;-)


   Thorsten


____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 18:59:31 +0200, ***POV-TEAM*** Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
>In article <3964aedf@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:
>
>>   Perhaps the problem is that people don't know/remember who is a povteam
>> member and who isn't, so their posts don't stand out of the mass?
>
>So you are suggesting we put ***POV-TEAM*** in our name? ;-)

That makes it look funny in slrn, because it only shows the first few letters
of your name.  Doesn't your signature occasionally say "I am a member of the
POV-Team"?  Mine used to imply I am, but since I post to non-pov newsgroups 
from this machine, and since I haven't customized it for other groups, I 
changed it to something more neutral.

-- 
Ron Parker   http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
My opinions.  Mine.  Not anyone else's.

Post a reply to this message

***POV-TEAM*** Thorsten Froehlich wrote:

> So you are suggesting we put ***POV-TEAM*** in our name? ;-)
>
>    Thorsten

And don't forget "I speak officially for the POV-TEAM" in you signature ;-)
G.

Post a reply to this message

In article <slr### [at] linuxparkerrfwicom> , 
***POV-TEAM***  wrote:

> That makes it look funny in slrn, because it only shows the first few letters
> of your name.  Doesn't your signature occasionally say "I am a member of the
> POV-Team"?

Yes, I have such a signature.  I use it for responses to e-mail I get to the
mac### [at] povrayorg e-mail address and for some posts in these groups either
if I intend to speak for the team regarding the Mac version, or sometimes if
I get the impression someone desires a response from a team member.

During some arguments, when I talk about the team I also use it occasionally
with a disclaimer in order to point out that it is my opinion, but to make
the person aware of the fact that I am in the team (so I don't get a reply
like: "How do you know about team?") and that I stand for that opinion in
the team.  This especially goes for replies to posts by people who I don't
recognise to visit these groups frequently and who may not know who is in
the team and who is not.

In rare occasions I also remove any signature, to make sure I don't imply
anything.

> Mine used to imply I am, but since I post to non-pov newsgroups
> from this machine, and since I haven't customized it for other groups, I
> changed it to something more neutral.

I had the same problem two years back in these groups.  That is why I
removed it from my default signature, it simply caused too many problems.

I don't post outside these groups, so it is usually OK to include my e-mail
address for any other (non-POV-Ray) reason in the standard signature :-)


     Thorsten


Standard:
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org


POV-Ray:
____________________________________________________
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


Newsgroup:
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany


Extended:
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
e-mail: fro### [at] charliecnsiitedu

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 6 Jul 2000 12:57:40 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>: I don't know about fancy APIs but tesselation would be a useful
>: feature.
>
>  But worth the efforts?

I would bet. There a gazillion quick, effective and good-looking
methods that rely on a polygon-based scene (radiosity, global
illumination, caustics, physical interraction etc. etc.)


Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] usanet
TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message

In article <3964ae3b@news.povray.org>, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> 
wrote:

>   Tesselation and fancy apis? What for?

Tesselation...some objects would render faster if tesselated, and you 
could use the tesselated version as a preview. Also, a low-res 
tesselated version of an object might be useful as a bounding shape for 
some objects.

I think the best way to do this would be a "tesselation {}" keyword for 
objects to specify options and that tesselation should be used. On 
objects which can't be tesselated(julia fractals, CSG, etc), a box, 
sphere, or other approximation could be used.
Infinite objects are more of a problem...a plane could be two triangles 
with the vertices at the largest distance POV can handle, but things 
like poly would have to generate a warning.


Fancy API's? Not needed, and left out for good reasons...

-- 
Christopher James Huff - Personal e-mail: chr### [at] maccom
TAG(Technical Assistance Group) e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
Personal Web page: http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG Web page: http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message

Peter Popov <pet### [at] usanet> wrote:
: I would bet. There a gazillion quick, effective and good-looking
: methods that rely on a polygon-based scene (radiosity, global
: illumination, caustics, physical interraction etc. etc.)

  Uh? Radiosity (ie. the specific algorithm called "radiosity") may depend
heavily on tesselation, and perhaps that physical interaction, but the
others I don't understand. We have global illumination and caustics already
in povray (patched or not). They do not need tesselation. And the algorithm
called "radiosity" is obsolete since we have the stochastic method that works
pretty well.

-- 
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

Chris Huff <chr### [at] maccom> wrote:
: Tesselation...some objects would render faster if tesselated, and you 
: could use the tesselated version as a preview. Also, a low-res 
: tesselated version of an object might be useful as a bounding shape for 
: some objects.

  But the tesselation process would eat at least some of that gained time.
Tesselation is not free.
  How can you be sure that a tesselated version of a (complicated) object
completely contains the original object?

: Infinite objects are more of a problem...a plane could be two triangles 
: with the vertices at the largest distance POV can handle

  Bad idea. Try to translate that by y*0.01 :)

-- 
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