 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi,
I was just wondering about the difference of them both... I'm currently using
POV-Ray on Linux and one thing I need that it doesn't actually provide is the
isosurfaces...
What are other differences?
Thanks,
Simon
--
+-------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Simon Lemieux | Website : http://www.666Mhz.net |
| Email : Sin### [at] 666Mhz net | POV-Ray, OpenGL, C++ and more... |
+-------------------------+----------------------------------+
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Simon Lemieux wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I was just wondering about the difference of them both... I'm currently
using
> POV-Ray on Linux and one thing I need that it doesn't actually provide is the
> isosurfaces...
> What are other differences?
>
> Thanks,
> Simon
>
Have a look at the meagpov docu available on the megapov website. All additions
are documented there.
http://nathan.kopp.com/patched.htm
there is also a compact feature list on that page.
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hmm.. I took a look, and since it's a patch, does it means it works the same way
as POV-Ray, I mean for the command line options (except for radiosity which
might be a bit different...)
Can I render POV-Ray files with MegaPOV?
--
+-------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Simon Lemieux | Website : http://www.666Mhz.net |
| Email : Sin### [at] 666Mhznet | POV-Ray, OpenGL, C++ and more... |
+-------------------------+----------------------------------+
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Simon Lemieux wrote:
>
> Can I render POV-Ray files with MegaPOV?
>
Yes. Although I believe a few features, e.g. radiosity, are not fully
backwards-compatible.
--
Margus Ramst
Personal e-mail: mar### [at] peakeduee
TAG (Team Assistance Group) e-mail: mar### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <39EF7EAE.93AD3385@peak.edu.ee>, Margus Ramst
<mar### [at] peakeduee> wrote:
> Yes. Although I believe a few features, e.g. radiosity, are not fully
> backwards-compatible.
Radiosity will require completely different settings, anything which
uses noise(bozo, wrinkles, agate, and many other patterns, things like
turbulence and iridescence) will look slightly different...I think
that's it.
--
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chris Huff" <chr### [at] maccom> wrote...
> In article <39EF7EAE.93AD3385@peak.edu.ee>, Margus Ramst
> <mar### [at] peakeduee> wrote:
>
> > Yes. Although I believe a few features, e.g. radiosity, are not fully
> > backwards-compatible.
>
> Radiosity will require completely different settings, anything which
> uses noise(bozo, wrinkles, agate, and many other patterns, things like
> turbulence and iridescence) will look slightly different...I think
> that's it.
Don't forget layered textures.
Also, you can make the noise and layered textures backwards compatible by
putting "#version official 3.1" at the END of you POV file.
-Nathan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Simon Lemieux wrote:
>
> Hmm.. I took a look, and since it's a patch, does it means it works the same way
> as POV-Ray, I mean for the command line options (except for radiosity which
> might be a bit different...)
>
> Can I render POV-Ray files with MegaPOV?
>
Yes, but...
- as others have pointed out, some textures will show up differently.
- TheMachine.Pov* doesn't even parse in MP 0.5a. (It barfs at the macro
definition on line 115.)
*I'm still on the first line of the first radiosity pass at 1024x768
AA0.3 after 1 hour on an Athlon 650. :(
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Simon Lemieux" <lem### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:39EF5798.59CB27F5@yahoo.com...
> Hi,
> I was just wondering about the difference of them both... I'm currently
using
> POV-Ray on Linux and one thing I need that it doesn't actually provide is
the
> isosurfaces...
> What are other differences?
>
Apart from isosurfaces, IMHO the most useful feature of MP is "trace".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wasn't it Chris Huff who wrote:
>In article <39EF7EAE.93AD3385@peak.edu.ee>, Margus Ramst
><mar### [at] peakeduee> wrote:
>
>> Yes. Although I believe a few features, e.g. radiosity, are not fully
>> backwards-compatible.
>
>Radiosity will require completely different settings, anything which
>uses noise(bozo, wrinkles, agate, and many other patterns, things like
>turbulence and iridescence) will look slightly different...I think
>that's it.
>
There are a few extra reserved words. I found that a lot of my old POV-
Ray scenes needed to be modified because they used "r" as a variable.
The new faster #macro implementation won't handle nested #macros,
whereas POV-Ray does handle them. I.e. you must #end one #macro before
you start defining the next one.
--
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Apart from isosurfaces, IMHO the most useful feature of MP is "trace".
>
Photons gets quite a bit of use too. A lot of the features are flavor
of the month, but they sure are fun.
--
Phil
...coffee?...yes please! extra sugar,extra cream...Thank you.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
