 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I recently had some toughts about POV-Ray's texturing system, and tried
to point out some incoherences and suggest some remedies. Please note
that I'm not whining, or requesting anything. These are just toughts
for a possible future. Read it, keep it, throw it, as you feel.
Here's the first of these toughts.
FINISH - Change in material structure
-------------------------------------
What's wrong with "finish"* ? "finish" is at the same hierarchic level
as
"pigment" and "normal", though it works very differently. "pigment" and
"normal" require a pattern and a map, while "finish" just has some
keywords.
Of course, "finish" could get some "finish_map", but since, anyway, a
pattern isn't *required*, it's still incoherent with "pigment" and
"normal".
So, my idea is to put "finish" at the same level as "texture", and
create
a "surface" entity to group both. Also, this require that, inside the
"finish" statement, finish properties are also grouped into separate
entities. Given the recent growth of the "finish" content (thanks to
MegaPOV), having all the keywords 'thrown' in a single statement became
annoying. This would, of course, allow the declaration of the finish
items : finish {reflection {Mirror1} highlights {VeryShiny} ..}
(*note to Warp : I didn't say 'What's wrong with Finnish ?' ;-))
Here is the proposed material structure :
material {
surface {
[pattern - surface_map]
texture {
[pattern - texture_map]
pigment {..}
normal {..}
}
finish {
[pattern - finish_map]
reflection {type .. min .. max .. exponent
..}
highlights {phong .. specular .. blinn ..}
iridescence {irid .. thickness ..}
light {ambient.. brilliance ..}
}
}
interior {
refraction {..}
media {..}
}
}
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hello,
Very well put.
I like your ideas, and agree that the nontrivial complexity inherent to
complete declaration of materials was implemented here-to-fore in a vexing
and insipid manner.
I intend not to bash Pov-Ray, but to state as the growth of the program has
increased, old methods of handling things must be changed.
This vast syntax alteration will cause many incompatibilities, but is
logical relative to the present form.
ian
Fabien Mosen wrote in message <39D9C88D.C0ABE99D@skynet.be>...
>
>material {
> surface {
> [pattern - surface_map]
> texture {
> [pattern - texture_map]
> pigment {..}
> normal {..}
> }
> finish
> [pattern - finish_map]
> reflection {type .. min .. max .. exponent
>..}
> highlights {phong .. specular .. blinn ..}
> iridescence {irid .. thickness ..}
> light {ambient.. brilliance ..}
> }
> }
>
> interior {
> refraction {..}
> media {..}
> }
> }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shudder... I *guess* I could adapt... if it's for the best...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tony[B]" wrote:
>
> Shudder... I *guess* I could adapt... if it's for the best...
If a change is made towards something that is more logical, it's
easy to get used to it. "ior" going from "finish" to "interior"
was logical, and no one complained about it.
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I like this new structure very much. I've only just come across the need for
a "finish map" (No, not a map of Finland!)
this would solve the problem nicely and is much more logical.
Mick
"Fabien Mosen" <fab### [at] skynet be> wrote in message
news:39D9C88D.C0ABE99D@skynet.be...
> I recently had some toughts about POV-Ray's texturing system, and tried
> to point out some incoherences and suggest some remedies. Please note
> that I'm not whining, or requesting anything. These are just toughts
> for a possible future. Read it, keep it, throw it, as you feel.
> Here's the first of these toughts.
>
> FINISH - Change in material structure
> -------------------------------------
> What's wrong with "finish"* ? "finish" is at the same hierarchic level
> as
> "pigment" and "normal", though it works very differently. "pigment" and
> "normal" require a pattern and a map, while "finish" just has some
> keywords.
> Of course, "finish" could get some "finish_map", but since, anyway, a
> pattern isn't *required*, it's still incoherent with "pigment" and
> "normal".
> So, my idea is to put "finish" at the same level as "texture", and
> create
> a "surface" entity to group both. Also, this require that, inside the
> "finish" statement, finish properties are also grouped into separate
> entities. Given the recent growth of the "finish" content (thanks to
> MegaPOV), having all the keywords 'thrown' in a single statement became
> annoying. This would, of course, allow the declaration of the finish
> items : finish {reflection {Mirror1} highlights {VeryShiny} ..}
>
> (*note to Warp : I didn't say 'What's wrong with Finnish ?' ;-))
>
> Here is the proposed material structure :
>
> material {
> surface {
> [pattern - surface_map]
> texture {
> [pattern - texture_map]
> pigment {..}
> normal {..}
> }
> finish
> [pattern - finish_map]
> reflection {type .. min .. max .. exponent
> ..}
> highlights {phong .. specular .. blinn ..}
> iridescence {irid .. thickness ..}
> light {ambient.. brilliance ..}
> }
> }
>
> interior {
> refraction {..}
> media {..}
> }
> }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This looks like it's more logical than the present syntax. How about making
it the syntax for POV 4.0, which will be a total rewrite?
Brendan
Fabien Mosen wrote:
> I recently had some toughts about POV-Ray's texturing system, and tried
> to point out some incoherences and suggest some remedies. Please note
> that I'm not whining, or requesting anything. These are just toughts
> for a possible future. Read it, keep it, throw it, as you feel.
> Here's the first of these toughts.
>
> FINISH - Change in material structure
> -------------------------------------
> What's wrong with "finish"* ? "finish" is at the same hierarchic level
> as
> "pigment" and "normal", though it works very differently. "pigment" and
> "normal" require a pattern and a map, while "finish" just has some
> keywords.
> Of course, "finish" could get some "finish_map", but since, anyway, a
> pattern isn't *required*, it's still incoherent with "pigment" and
> "normal".
> So, my idea is to put "finish" at the same level as "texture", and
> create
> a "surface" entity to group both. Also, this require that, inside the
> "finish" statement, finish properties are also grouped into separate
> entities. Given the recent growth of the "finish" content (thanks to
> MegaPOV), having all the keywords 'thrown' in a single statement became
> annoying. This would, of course, allow the declaration of the finish
> items : finish {reflection {Mirror1} highlights {VeryShiny} ..}
>
> (*note to Warp : I didn't say 'What's wrong with Finnish ?' ;-))
>
> Here is the proposed material structure :
>
> material {
> surface {
> [pattern - surface_map]
> texture {
> [pattern - texture_map]
> pigment {..}
> normal {..}
> }
> finish {
> [pattern - finish_map]
> reflection {type .. min .. max .. exponent
> ..}
> highlights {phong .. specular .. blinn ..}
> iridescence {irid .. thickness ..}
> light {ambient.. brilliance ..}
> }
> }
>
> interior {
> refraction {..}
> media {..}
> }
> }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <39da341d@news.povray.org> , "Mick Hazelgrove"
<mic### [at] mhazelgrovefsnetcouk> wrote:
> I like this new structure very much. I've only just come across the need for
> a "finish map" (No, not a map of Finland!)
> this would solve the problem nicely and is much more logical.
You are aware that you can just use a texture_map, so except for consistency
reasons the current syntax should not limit you, or does it?
Thorsten
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fabien Mosen wrote:
>
> "Tony[B]" wrote:
> >
> > Shudder... I *guess* I could adapt... if it's for the best...
>
> If a change is made towards something that is more logical, it's
> easy to get used to it.
Logical to whom ?
> "ior" going from "finish" to "interior"
> was logical, and no one complained about it.
I did :)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
How about this? Notice that "map" replaces all the other maps (less typing),
"light" is now "lighting", and that interior has "fading {...}" now. You
like?
material
{
surface
{
[pattern - map]
texture
{
[pattern - map]
pigment {..}
normal {..}
}
finish
[pattern - map]
reflection {type .. min .. max .. exponent ..}
highlights {phong .. specular .. blinn ..}
iridescence {irid .. thickness ..}
lighting {ambient.. brilliance ..}
}
}
interior
{
ior
media {..}
fading {distance .. power .. color ..}
}
}
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yes I am aware of that but I found that it was quite hard to control. Much
easier if there was one finish for the whole texture.
Mick
"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in message
news:39da7513$1@news.povray.org...
> In article <39da341d@news.povray.org> , "Mick Hazelgrove"
> <mic### [at] mhazelgrovefsnetcouk> wrote:
>
> > I like this new structure very much. I've only just come across the need
for
> > a "finish map" (No, not a map of Finland!)
> > this would solve the problem nicely and is much more logical.
>
> You are aware that you can just use a texture_map, so except for
consistency
> reasons the current syntax should not limit you, or does it?
>
>
> Thorsten
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
