> > <sigh> Maybe I'm just bitter and twisted, but I'd still like to know what
> > people think.
> 
> I see your complaint, but I don't quite understand your position. AFAIK,
> you can do everything with POV-Ray 3.x that you could with 2.2. Evenb if
> you lack the patience or ability to use many of the newer features, you
> have lost nothing (and many of them are potentially slow, RAM-hungry, or
> both, so in that way it's just as well).

It's not a complaint as such, (note to self: you forgot smiley off end of 
last paragraph in initial post) but it just feels like I can't understand 
half of the source posted on these groups because I'm not a programmer, 
and as soon as I see a loop or similar structure, something in my brain 
switches off and I give it up as a bad job.

> The only solution to your complaint that I can see that would add value
> to POV-Ray would be to turn it into something like a commercial 3D
> package, with a dedicated modeller and a zillion preset textures and
> such all wrapped up in a friendly GUI interface (and indeed some of the
> people here would NOT want that, even if it was offered to them, because
> it would get in the way of controlling their code). Can you really
> expect that from a free product, coded by a handful of volunteers?

Oh god no!  I wasn't even vaguely suggesting anything of the sort.  I 
like POV as it is, I wasn't particularly bothered about the wait for 3.5, 
it's just that as I think back to how I got into it in the first place I 
realise that if I came across POV today I'd be unlikely to give it a 
second look as it's starting to look like a programming language.

I'll try to be a bit more rational on this subject tomorrow night, but 
it's late, I've got work inthe morning, and my bed is calling to me...

Bye for <yawn> now,
     Jamie.

Post a reply to this message

Jamie Davison <jam### [at] ntlworldcom> wrote:
> Is it just me, or does POV seem to be turning more and more into a 
> programmers toy...

One year ago or so, in a thread in povray.programming,
Thorsten Froehlich pointed out the following reference : 

[1] "How Programmers Stole the Web" by Bruce Tognazzini
    <http://www.AskTog.com/columns/028WebStealers.html>

As I said, the context was a little bit different, but
the article is still very interesting and intelligent.

Stephane.

Post a reply to this message

Jamie Davison wrote:
> 
> it's just that as I think back to how I got into it in the first place I
> realise that if I came across POV today I'd be unlikely to give it a
> second look as it's starting to look like a programming language.

Well.. there's really no other good way to do what macros and loops do,
except by using some kind of scripting, or else using some kind of
program to pregenerate whatever-it-is that you're trying to make. So it
can't be helped. ^_^;

Have you given loop and/or macro scripting a try? It's not all that
daunting once you get the hang of it.

For what it's worth, I think that a lot of users had second thoughts
when they see that there's no integrated modeller and everything is done
with code, but stuck with it anyway.

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message

Mike Hough wrote:

> I made an export plugin for Hash's Animation Master available several years
> ago that can potentially support parametric image mapping and animation but
> no one seemed to be interested in an updated version so I have just kept it
> to myself.

Well, not absolutely no one. I have and use the only version of the AM exporter
I have ever seen, and if there is an updated version, I am more than interested
...

Post a reply to this message

You are correct.  With the advent of the PC, the computer priesthood (who
stood between the masses and the mainframe) lost their exalted place in
society's firmament.  Programs like POVRay and simple tools like basic and
HTML only further exacerbated that reduction in power and prestige held by
the priests of the machine.

They have stewed over this for years.  Now they are working to be come
ascendant again.

All one has to do is look at the new developments in basic (e.g. object
oriented visual basic), HTML (XML), and simple programs like POVRay to see
their method of choice.  They have decided d that if they can make tools
(that were previously simple things that ordinary people could do)  very
complicated and complex to use, the poor, teeming masses of the regular user
community will be forced into supplication again.

They will try to confuse you by talking about added features and more
powerful applications but, at the end of the day, the average schmoo like
you and me find that the things we could do easily before now require
priestly intervention for success.

It's a sad thing but something we must continue to resist.  Computers should
be for people to use without the requirement of priestly intervention.


Jim


has decided to reassert their control over PCs
"Jamie Davison" <jam### [at] ntlworldcom> wrote in message
news:MPG.1611abca539fd5fd989a0f@news.povray.org...
> Is it just me, or does POV seem to be turning more and more into a
> programmers toy...
>
> I started back in the days of 2.2, when the requirements for using POV
> were more 3D geometry, but now, with Isosurfaces, loops etc. it seems to
> require programming skills to use to the full.
>
> I am not a programmer, this is why I use Moray to put scenes together,
> but this question was prompted by the number of people in the 'Most
> common way to make POV files?' thread that have said thay they write, or
> have written prgrams to output POV code.
>
> <sigh> Maybe I'm just bitter and twisted, but I'd still like to know what
> people think.
>
> Bye for now,
>      Jamie.

Post a reply to this message

I think I'll nail this to the door of the local Microsoft Certified Partner
IT company and change my name to Martin Luther.

Jim

"Jim Kress" <dea### [at] kressworkscom> wrote in message
news:3ba80152@news.povray.org...
> You are correct.  With the advent of the PC, the computer priesthood (who
> stood between the masses and the mainframe) lost their exalted place in
> society's firmament.  Programs like POVRay and simple tools like basic and
> HTML only further exacerbated that reduction in power and prestige held by
> the priests of the machine.
>
> They have stewed over this for years.  Now they are working to be come
> ascendant again.
>
> All one has to do is look at the new developments in basic (e.g. object
> oriented visual basic), HTML (XML), and simple programs like POVRay to see
> their method of choice.  They have decided d that if they can make tools
> (that were previously simple things that ordinary people could do)  very
> complicated and complex to use, the poor, teeming masses of the regular
user
> community will be forced into supplication again.
>
> They will try to confuse you by talking about added features and more
> powerful applications but, at the end of the day, the average schmoo like
> you and me find that the things we could do easily before now require
> priestly intervention for success.
>
> It's a sad thing but something we must continue to resist.  Computers
should
> be for people to use without the requirement of priestly intervention.
>
>
> Jim
>
>
> has decided to reassert their control over PCs
> "Jamie Davison" <jam### [at] ntlworldcom> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1611abca539fd5fd989a0f@news.povray.org...
> > Is it just me, or does POV seem to be turning more and more into a
> > programmers toy...
> >
> > I started back in the days of 2.2, when the requirements for using POV
> > were more 3D geometry, but now, with Isosurfaces, loops etc. it seems to
> > require programming skills to use to the full.
> >
> > I am not a programmer, this is why I use Moray to put scenes together,
> > but this question was prompted by the number of people in the 'Most
> > common way to make POV files?' thread that have said thay they write, or
> > have written prgrams to output POV code.
> >
> > <sigh> Maybe I'm just bitter and twisted, but I'd still like to know
what
> > people think.
> >
> > Bye for now,
> >      Jamie.
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Dave Dunn wrote:
> Well, not absolutely no one. I have and use the only version of the AM exporter
> I have ever seen, and if there is an updated version, I am more than interested

Speaking of AM (just to be off-topic 'cuz I'm too lazy to look in the
appropriate
newsgroup...) is there any really simple tutorial around on how to use it that
doesn't involve reading the entire manual?

At least POV and Moray are intuitive, even the hand-coding of POV...^_^
-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.scifi-fantasy.com

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

Timothy Cook wrote:

>>Speaking of AM (just to be off-topic 'cuz I'm too lazy to look in the appropriate
>>newsgroup...) is there any really simple tutorial around on how to use it that
>>doesn't involve reading the entire manual?

At the risk of incurring someone's wrath, I'll respond with an off-topic answer...
The patch modeler in AM is pretty straightforward; if you know sPatch, you can pretty
much figure it out. There are a few features, such as hooks and five-point patches
that you really just have to look up. The tutorials that come with AM are pretty good
and will fill you in on the rest, such as materials, choreography, and bones. And
with Mike's POV exporter, you don't have to put up with the so-so renderer...

Post a reply to this message

Dave Dunn wrote:
> The patch modeler in AM is pretty straightforward; if you know sPatch, you
> can pretty much figure it out.

And if I don't, I have to RTFM :P

> And with Mike's POV exporter, you don't have to put up with the so-so
> renderer...

Need to get me that, even tho all I've really done is just buy AM...not
used it at all...

What bugs me about AM is that since it requires the CD to be in the drive
to use it, I can't do other cd-using stuff at the same time (and I have
to hunt down my AM CD when I want to use it...)
But I've seen its output, and it's better than Poser by far...gawd I
hate Poser.
-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.scifi-fantasy.com

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

"Xplo Eristotle" <inq### [at] unforgettablecom> wrote
>
> For what it's worth, I think that a lot of users had second thoughts
> when they see that there's no integrated modeller and everything is done
> with code, but stuck with it anyway.

    I think the first time I saw POV-Ray was well before I was willing to
use it. I was looking for images of porpoises, and got something that was
only to be used with a ting that made 3d images using script. It could have
been POV-Ray, but when I saw the code, I put it away. It just looked too
complicated for what I wanted.

Post a reply to this message