"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message news:3c569cc1@news.povray.org...
> Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> : I totally understand if people don't use the current betas because they
> : don't want to regularly download large packages
>
>   Honestly speaking, I don't.

?

Over a slow modem, the d/l can be quite demanding - or did you misunderstand?

Post a reply to this message

>   There are only pigment functions, which is a bit different beast.
In what way?  As I see it, you can do a lot more with pigments than with patterns.

>   Note that you can also use pigment functions in pov3.5, but it's more
> versatile: You can not only get the gray value of the pigment as its value,
> but also any of the color channels or even a hf value.
Ok, that's a good thing indeed.

>   I also forgot to mention that in megapov you can only have 3 parameters to
> functions, while in pov3.5 you can have any number of parameters from 1 to
> some bigger value (which I don't remember). This means that you can do things
> like, for example:
>
> #declare MyFunction = function(x,y,z,s) { s*(sin(x)*sin(y)*sin(z))^2 }
>
> and then use it like for example:
>
>   pigment
>   { function { MyFunction(x,y,z,(x+y)^2) }
>     color_map { [0 rgb 0][.5 rgb x][1 rgb 1] }
>   }
cool!
Now add the missing features from MegaPov, and i'm all for it! :)

> :> behaviour outside the range 0-1,
> : they have changed the transmit behaviour outside the range 0-1 ???
> : :(
> : I liked it the way it was...
>   Really? Do you know how it was previously? It was pretty illogical and didn't
> make much sense.
actually it seemed to make a lot of sense to me.  I don't know exactly how it worked,
but
I do know that I used it once to create a special effect.

> :> support for reading JPEG and TIFF,
> : useful, but not reason enough to use 3.5 instead of MegaPov.  Not for me at least.
>   If you are ever going to use imported 3DS files, you'll probably appreciate
> the JPEG support, as 3DS textures are often given in JPEG format.
Hmmm, I'm one of those who makes everything himself.  I don't use 3DS-files, because I
don't have 3DS :)

>   Other big advantages include the new windows editor, which is much nicer,
> the greatly improved documentation and the greatly improved include files.
A good POVver no longer needs the documentation :)
And again: I never used the include files bundled with POV-Ray.
And what's so special about the new editor, actually?

cu!
--
camera{location-z*3}#macro G(b,e)b+(e-b)*(C/50)#end#macro L(b,e,k,l)#local C=0
;#while(C<50)sphere{G(b,e),.1pigment{rgb G(k,l)}finish{ambient 1}}#local C=C+1
;#end#end L(y-x,y,x,x+y)L(y,-x-y,x+y,y)L(-x-y,-y,y,y+z)L(-y,y,y+z,x+y)L(0,x+y,
<.5,1,.5>,x)L(0,x-y,<.5,1,.5>,x)               // ZK http://www.povplace.be.tf

Post a reply to this message

Zeger Knaepen <zeg### [at] studentkuleuvenacbe> wrote:
: And again: I never used the include files bundled with POV-Ray.

  Because there wasn't anything interesting in them, until now.

: And what's so special about the new editor, actually?

  Read the first chapter of the documentation.

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

> To make one thing absolutely clear, and this is not only to you but also some
> others in this thread:
> You have no, I repeat no, business to tell us how we spend our time!!!  If we
> would make a POV-Ray 3.6, 3.7, 3.8 and 3.9, it would be our decision to do so
> and you would have no business telling us to not to do it!
wow, sorry, I didn't mean to offend you or anyone else.  I never said you shouldn't
spend
time on POV3.5, I only said *I* wouldn't do it, and (I quote):"IMHO it's a waste of
time"
Mind the IMHO-part, I don't write the H because it's supposed to be there, but because
I
really think my opinion is humble.  I know I have no business to tell you how to spend
your time.  But I never did so and I never will.

> The POV-Team is not going to justify any design decisions for POV-Ray 3.5.
> There is a reason for everything, and if you are not willing to understand
> this, it is your problem alone.  If you don't like POV-Ray 3.5 fine, then
> don't use it and quit whining and wasting the time of everybody else!
I don't know whether I like POV3.5 or not, I never tried it.
And if I'm wasting someone's time: I'm sorry, that was never my intention.  I was just
saying what's on my mind, and I think if everyone did this more often, the world would
be
a beter place :)

cu!
--
camera{location-z*3}#macro G(b,e)b+(e-b)*(C/50)#end#macro L(b,e,k,l)#local C=0
;#while(C<50)sphere{G(b,e),.1pigment{rgb G(k,l)}finish{ambient 1}}#local C=C+1
;#end#end L(y-x,y,x,x+y)L(y,-x-y,x+y,y)L(-x-y,-y,y,y+z)L(-y,y,y+z,x+y)L(0,x+y,
<.5,1,.5>,x)L(0,x-y,<.5,1,.5>,x)               // ZK http://www.povplace.be.tf

Post a reply to this message

> Pov3.5 takes the best of Megapov, remove the bugs, and makes it the official
> version from which all future versions will be build.. I don't see why
> Pov4.0 should be a complete rewrite.. Anyway, making Pov3.5 first, is the
> logical way to go.. It's like to climp up the stairs, instead of trying to
> jump to the top.
It's not my idea to make POV4.0 a complete rewrite (although I agree that it would
probably be a good thing).  But didn't the POV-Team say that POV4.0 would be a
complete
rewrite in C++?

If I'm wrong about this, then I have no problems whatsoever with POV3.5, but if that's
right, I really think starting with POV4.0 would have been a better idea (and no: I'm
not
telling you what to do, I'm telling you what I would do)

cu!
--
camera{location-z*3}#macro G(b,e)b+(e-b)*(C/50)#end#macro L(b,e,k,l)#local C=0
;#while(C<50)sphere{G(b,e),.1pigment{rgb G(k,l)}finish{ambient 1}}#local C=C+1
;#end#end L(y-x,y,x,x+y)L(y,-x-y,x+y,y)L(-x-y,-y,y,y+z)L(-y,y,y+z,x+y)L(0,x+y,
<.5,1,.5>,x)L(0,x-y,<.5,1,.5>,x)               // ZK http://www.povplace.be.tf

Post a reply to this message

> Hmm, is this a valid arguement? 4.0 may be a rewrite, but I wouldn't imagine
> that that means throwing out everything that has proceeded it. More a question
> of implementing the algorithms in a different framework.
maybe, I don't know enough about C and C++.  Maybe they can just copy/paste most of
the
code, and in that case I can understand why they made POV3.5.

> Besides, what's there to complain about? Jam today and tomorrow suits me
> fine....
I'm not complaining, I'm just telling you what I think about POV3.5.  If you don't
like my
opinion: have your own one :)

cu!
--
camera{location-z*3}#macro G(b,e)b+(e-b)*(C/50)#end#macro L(b,e,k,l)#local C=0
;#while(C<50)sphere{G(b,e),.1pigment{rgb G(k,l)}finish{ambient 1}}#local C=C+1
;#end#end L(y-x,y,x,x+y)L(y,-x-y,x+y,y)L(-x-y,-y,y,y+z)L(-y,y,y+z,x+y)L(0,x+y,
<.5,1,.5>,x)L(0,x-y,<.5,1,.5>,x)               // ZK http://www.povplace.be.tf

Post a reply to this message

> : And again: I never used the include files bundled with POV-Ray.
>   Because there wasn't anything interesting in them, until now.
no, because I like to make everything myself.  Even when I add a lensflare, it's with
a
customized version of Colefax' include file and using a custom lens effect.

> : And what's so special about the new editor, actually?
>   Read the first chapter of the documentation.
hmmm, ok, I will.

cu!
--
camera{location-z*3}#macro G(b,e)b+(e-b)*(C/50)#end#macro L(b,e,k,l)#local C=0
;#while(C<50)sphere{G(b,e),.1pigment{rgb G(k,l)}finish{ambient 1}}#local C=C+1
;#end#end L(y-x,y,x,x+y)L(y,-x-y,x+y,y)L(-x-y,-y,y,y+z)L(-y,y,y+z,x+y)L(0,x+y,
<.5,1,.5>,x)L(0,x-y,<.5,1,.5>,x)               // ZK http://www.povplace.be.tf

Post a reply to this message

Zeger Knaepen <zeg### [at] studentkuleuvenacbe> wrote:
: no, because I like to make everything myself.

  Why?
  If I want to, for example, reorient an object from one axis to another,
I'm not interested in calculating the transformations needed for that when
I can easily use the standard macro which comes with pov3.5. It saves me
time and trouble.

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

> : no, because I like to make everything myself.
>   Why?
it's more fun, and the results are more your own.  Of course I don't make everything
myself, and the example you give below is one of the things I use other people code
for.
So I'll probably like POV3.5's include files :)

cu!
--
camera{location-z*3}#macro G(b,e)b+(e-b)*(C/50)#end#macro L(b,e,k,l)#local C=0
;#while(C<50)sphere{G(b,e),.1pigment{rgb G(k,l)}finish{ambient 1}}#local C=C+1
;#end#end L(y-x,y,x,x+y)L(y,-x-y,x+y,y)L(-x-y,-y,y,y+z)L(-y,y,y+z,x+y)L(0,x+y,
<.5,1,.5>,x)L(0,x-y,<.5,1,.5>,x)               // ZK http://www.povplace.be.tf

Post a reply to this message

Zeger Knaepen <zeg### [at] studentkuleuvenacbe> wrote:
: it's more fun,

  Not in the long run.
  If you find yourself using a special feature over and over again, you
probably will make your own include file in order to avoid writing the same
thing many times. This is not much different from just using a standard include
file.

: and the results are more your own.

  Well, in an extreme case you shouldn't use povray at all then, but write
your own raytracer. Then the results will really be your own.

  Why is it ok to use 'rotate' or 'scale', but it's not ok to use
'Reorient_Trans' just because it's in an include file instead of being an
internal keyword? I don't understand.
  If 'Reorient_Trans' was in internal feature instead of being a macro, would
it then be ok to use it? Why? What's the difference?

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message