 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
from povray.co.uk
Seems that for a couple of French guys at least, POV and its patches are not
enough. They have decided to write zRCube, current release only has standard
raytracing, however planned features include radioasity, NURBS and network
rendering.
Why a clone? Well it uses POV-Rays scene description language. Cheers to
Thomas for the heads up.
http://zrcube.sourceforge.net/
is there an official line on this, as in a way its pov, but not pov?
--
Rick
Kitty5 WebDesign - http://Kitty5.com
Hi-Impact database driven web site design & e-commerce
TEL : +44 (01625) 266358 - FAX : +44 (01625) 611913 - ICQ : 15776037
POV-Ray News & Resources - http://Povray.co.uk
PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rick [Kitty5]" <ric### [at] kitty5 com> wrote in message
news:3b156c2e@news.povray.org...
> from povray.co.uk
>
> Seems that for a couple of French guys at least, POV and its patches are
not
> enough. They have decided to write zRCube, current release only has
standard
> raytracing, however planned features include radioasity, NURBS and network
> rendering.
Any chance of someone hosting a Win32 executable of this - I have no idea
what a tar.gz file is, but I assume it's something to do with compiling....
it's just that I'd love a play with this and don't have the software/skills
required to compile my own.
Thanks,
Peter Cracknell
--
http://www.petercracknell.com
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.255 / Virus Database: 128 - Release Date: 17/05/2001
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3b15701d@news.povray.org>, "Peter Cracknell" <pc### [at] lineonenet>
wrote:
> "Rick [Kitty5]" <ric### [at] kitty5com> wrote in message
> news:3b156c2e@news.povray.org...
>> from povray.co.uk
>>
>> Seems that for a couple of French guys at least, POV and its patches
>> are
> not
>> enough. They have decided to write zRCube, current release only has
> standard
>> raytracing, however planned features include radioasity, NURBS and
>> network rendering.
>
> Any chance of someone hosting a Win32 executable of this - I have no
> idea what a tar.gz file is, but I assume it's something to do with
> compiling.... it's just that I'd love a play with this and don't have
> the software/skills required to compile my own.
>
> Thanks,
> Peter Cracknell
>
> --
> http://www.petercracknell.com
A tar.gz file is a source archive for Linux. Winzip should be able to
open it, but without a working Linux ditstribution, you wouldn't be able
to compile it without porting it to Windows. Hope this helps!
David
smu### [at] ameritechnet
ICQ#: 118347772
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3b15701d@news.povray.org>,
"Peter Cracknell" <pc### [at] lineonenet> wrote:
> Any chance of someone hosting a Win32 executable of this - I have no idea
> what a tar.gz file is, but I assume it's something to do with compiling....
The tar.gz file is just a compression/archive format, like .sit or .zip,
common on Unix and Unix-like systems. It has nothing to do with
compiling...
--
Christopher James Huff - chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3b156c2e@news.povray.org>,
"Rick [Kitty5]" <ric### [at] kitty5com> wrote:
> Why a clone? Well it uses POV-Rays scene description language. Cheers to
> Thomas for the heads up.
It sounds like it's a completely different kind of renderer, sharing
most of the SDL, but using other rendering and lighting methods(like
"real" radiosity, not Monte-Carlo raytracing like POV uses). They also
don't seem to know that POV itself will be rewritten soon...
> is there an official line on this, as in a way its pov, but not pov?
Since no POV source is involved, and it doesn't claim to be POV, I don't
see why...
--
Christopher James Huff - chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rick [Kitty5]" wrote:
>
> is there an official line on this, as in a way its pov, but not pov?
IIRC, the POV License specifically forbids reuse of POV-Ray
code, and specifically encourages re-use and implementation
of POV-Ray SDL, though they reserve the right to change the
language at any time.
--
Adrien Beau - adr### [at] freefr - http://adrien.beau@free.fr
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Peter Cracknell wrote:
>
> Any chance of someone hosting a Win32 executable of this - I have no idea
> what a tar.gz file is, but I assume it's something to do with compiling....
> it's just that I'd love a play with this and don't have the software/skills
> required to compile my own.
>
I had a quick look, the program uses gtk and therefore will not be
compilable straight away with cygwin. There is a port of gtk for Windows
so it should be possible.
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Huff wrote:
>
> It sounds like it's a completely different kind of renderer, sharing
> most of the SDL, but using other rendering and lighting methods(like
> "real" radiosity, not Monte-Carlo raytracing like POV uses). They also
> don't seem to know that POV itself will be rewritten soon...
>
Now i'm disturbed, doesn't 'real' radiosity require tessellation of
objects?
BTW i don't agree with most of the things they write in their
introduction, especially the stuff about "more recent algorithms" and
rendering speed.
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
in news:3B15FC14.4280E329@gmx.de Christoph Hormann wrote:
> BTW i don't agree with most of the things they write in their
> introduction, especially the stuff about "more recent algorithms" and
> rendering speed.
Well, they must have found some amazing algorithms, as they state:
"... I don't care if I spent 40 seconds or 25 secs for my final
rendering if the final result is better for the longer rendering...."
Ingo
--
Photography: http://members.home.nl/ingoogni/
Pov-Ray : http://members.home.nl/seed7/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <chr### [at] povrayorg> , Chris Huff
<chr### [at] maccom> wrote:
> It sounds like it's a completely different kind of renderer, sharing
> most of the SDL, but using other rendering and lighting methods(like
> "real" radiosity, not Monte-Carlo raytracing like POV uses).
Interesting enough, their description implies it will support "radiosity"
and POV-Ray uses a different not "real" radiosity. Both are "radiosity"
regarding the effect they simulate, and their approach will force
tessellation for most objects. As far as I know others have tried to
combine the classic radiosity with raytracing and the results were hardly
ever fast enough for complex scenes.
> They also don't seem to know that POV itself will be rewritten soon...
Their description shows some misunderstanding. The fundamental raytracing
algorithm has been developed over 30 years ago, so whether it was
implemented ten years ago or ten days ago will not make any difference in
output quality or speed.
Besides, features like radiosity don't just make a difference of 40 instead
of 25 seconds to render (as said in their description). A good
approximation of a complex scenes will take much longer, and since one
usually ends up solving a big matrix, memory and/or processing requirements
are extreme, it only makes sense for animations (because it is viewpoint
independent) but for still images the method currently used by POV-Ray will
likely give a better results on non-supercomputers.
And, right now there is no word on support of future official features like
photons, which probably add more realism to a scene than a more precise
radiosity algorithm.
In conclusion, the most useful feature they offer is the reuse of POV-Ray
scenes, but I would expect them to look just different, not necessarily
"more realistic"...
Thorsten
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
