 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sir Charles W. Shults III <aic### [at] cfl rrcom> wrote:
> Personally, I think that simpler is better here. Most of what I model I
> get done very nicely with boxes, cylinders, etc. More complex shapes are
> fine, but you don't often really need them. POVray should stick with the
> K.I.S.S. principle wherever possible.
So let's take off the complex primitives from those who use them just
because *you* don't use them?
No.
The fact that you are S.S. doesn't mean everyone else is.
--
#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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It was just a joke. It wasn't meant to be taken seriously.
--
#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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Corey Woodworth" <cdw### [at] mpinetnet> wrote in message
news:3c9523b7@news.povray.org...
<snip>
Heh-heh.
Hey, you forgot the smiley... Oh well, I doubt there's any chance anyone will
think you meant it....
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom> wrote:
> The
> merge shape could be replaced with an option for the union shape
So we reduce the number of reserved keywords by 0 and we force the parser
to make a much more complicated task (it starts by creating a union, but
in the middle of parsing it suddenly has to convert it to merge).
>, sor
> could be an option for lathes,
Same problem. Number of reserved keywords are reduced by 0 and the parser
has to change the lathe to a sor (which might be a bit complicated).
> The prism and polygon primitives could be made
> into one primitive, or prism, sor, and lathe could be combined into a
> single sweep primitive.
You said that this would simplify the syntax. I don't see how. If all of
them are made into one sweep primitive, we end up getting one reserved
keyword more than currently. I don't see how this makes anything simpler.
> Smooth triangles could be made part of ordinary
> triangles.
And how do we differentiate between them?
--
#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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It is interesting that you seem to really take offense to my opinion,
and then resort to attempts at insult. This is an open forum discussion. I
am not suggesting that the authors remove anything, but I have learned
something useful about your state of mind.
Cheers!
Chip Shults
My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Christopher James Huff" <chr### [at] maccom> wrote :
>
> do_what_i_mean...
I would pay large money for a computer that would do what I intended it
to do instead of what I told it to do...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3c9605df$1@news.povray.org...
>
>
> I would pay large money for a computer that would do what I intended it
> to do instead of what I told it to do...
>
... and I would pay even more for a version of Word that did what I told it to
do, instead of what it thinks I intended it to do.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Follow-ups to P.O.T.
"Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote in message
news:3c960740$1@news.povray.org...
> "Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
> news:3c9605df$1@news.povray.org...
> >
> >
> > I would pay large money for a computer that would do what I intended
it
> > to do instead of what I told it to do...
> >
>
> ... and I would pay even more for a version of Word that did what I told
it to
> do, instead of what it thinks I intended it to do.
You only -think- you wanted it to do what you told it to do, you really
wanted it to do what it did. It is a fundamental law of nature that what
Bill Gates thinks is what you want. Any imaginations you have that might
dispute this law are simply wrong.
"MicroSoft: what do we want you to do today?"
PS: I was able to work every single word of the "Bunnies" song into a
conversation at work last night. I felt inordinately proud of myself even
though no one noticed...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Hey, you forgot the smiley... Oh well, I doubt there's any chance anyone
will
> think you meant it....
I took his ideas seriously. Some people thinks in a way we don't understand
but it's not necessary to make fun of them and risk hurting them. Maybe he
is a boy. He said some things in a less polite way but I felt he tried to
make a point. A polite respond is always a good idea.
Regards,
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
3 ideas that will change the povray world:
1.
I think we should port povray to Java instead. And then we should start a
render farm that runs on java-enabled phones. So many people with java
enabled phones, you wouldn't believe it!
2.
And additionally we should start thinking about porting povray to commodore
64. I bet many people use their commodore 64 on a daily basis. They'd be
very grateful if you'd do the job.
3.
Force Intel to build a hardware povray version: PnR (Plug 'n Render)
--
Apache
http://geitenkaas.dns2go.com/experiments/
apa### [at] yahoocom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
