 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jamie Davison wrote:
>
> Is it just me, or does POV seem to be turning more and more into a
> programmers toy...
The programming and math features expand povray's capabilites
beyond normal rendering application. I believe most high end
packages have some kind of scripting language so it's nothing
new.
You can safely ignore there features and do vanilla scenes in
your favorite modeller.
_____________
Kari Kivisalo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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
In that case I'll make the new one available. The one dilemma I have is
that the patch type needs to be changed back to 1 and accuracy needs to be
changed to u and v steps for it to work with 3.5. The default I'm thinking
of using is u_steps 4 and v_steps 4. Do those sound like good values?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
> Is it just me, or does POV seem to be turning more and more into a
> programmers toy...
POV is a "programmers toy" since the first day of its existance. If
not, it would have included some interface. It was later that
non-programmer users had managed to use it, because it was a very simple
scripting language.
Anyhow, what it is turning to be is more like a mathematics toy, bcos
for many new features you need to understand and visualize many math
concepts (for isos, functions, etc..).
> 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.
How a scripting language would not require any programming skills?
What you mean is that now it requires *more* programming skills? No! To
do the same things that these new features do, we needed always external
programming, so these things always required programming skills!
> 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.
That shows that "programming" is the usual way for the "mean" POV
user, as it was since it's firsts days.
--
Jaime Vives Piqueres
La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Hough wrote:
> >> The default I'm thinking
> >>of using is u_steps 4 and v_steps 4. Do those sound like good values?
Hmm, who knows what 3.5 would find tasty. The spatch exporter always used
accuracy .0001 and u_steps 3 v_steps 3, but 4 might be better, if slower to
parse.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> POV is a "programmers toy" since the first day of its existance. If
> not, it would have included some interface. It was later that
> non-programmer users had managed to use it, because it was a very simple
> scripting language.
>
> Anyhow, what it is turning to be is more like a mathematics toy, bcos
> for many new features you need to understand and visualize many math
> concepts (for isos, functions, etc..).
Yes, and it's brain-melting sometimes, but I feel it's worth trying to
find out how to do it. I've never met a modeller I liked, although I was
rather fond of Cinema 4D - shame about the price and the terrible
feature set.
>>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.
>>
>
> How a scripting language would not require any programming skills?
> What you mean is that now it requires *more* programming skills? No! To
> do the same things that these new features do, we needed always external
> programming, so these things always required programming skills!
Just now, we can program in POV itself rather than having to write the
stuff in C++ or whatever. Although I must admit, there are a few places
I'd like to see if it's possible to make POV's scripting language a
little nicer for the programming side of things - but then I am a C++
programmer at heart, and POV's #while...#end construct gets on my nerves
for some reason. It must be the # signs.
>>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.
>>
>
> That shows that "programming" is the usual way for the "mean" POV
> user, as it was since it's firsts days.
It is, IMO, one of POV's good points. Having text-based, human-readable
scene files instead of something horrible and binary makes it possible
for anyone with some programming skill and some ideas to write utility
programs for POV. It's a fantastic thing, and it's the UNIX way :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Hmm, who knows what 3.5 would find tasty. The spatch exporter always used
> accuracy .0001 and u_steps 3 v_steps 3, but 4 might be better, if slower
to
> parse.
I think I'll be going with 4 because the spatch exported files had a
tendency to show artifacts due to insufficient meshing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim,
I've had a similar experience with AM. I bought it
and upgraded, but still haven't used it. The learning
curve is just too great. I keep going back to doing
POV-Ray with hand coding. I bought the Animation
Master Handbook, two editions even, and they
were not much help. In fact I found many errors
in the tutorials in the book. The tutorials that come
with the program and the manual are better. I've
considered buying the instructional tapes, but haven't
gotten around to it.
Harold
"Timothy Cook" <tim### [at] scifi-fantasy com> wrote in message
news:3BA8096F.89256363@scifi-fantasy.com...
> 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
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jamie,
Two observations. First, it is the community
that is changing rather than POV-Ray. There
are more and more very sophisticated users.
Secondly, I think you are on to something
which is that the computer graphics environment
is changing. There are many powerful and
affordable CG packages now and the
niche for POV-Ray is becoming more the
hands-on programming specialty.
I'm not a programmer, yet I'm working on
two VisualBasic programs that generate
POV-Ray script. One takes social science
statistical data and generates attractive
stereoscopic pairs of bar charts and other
simple graphs. The other is very simple, it
generates random parameters for the Julia
fractal. Very fun though, I can spend hours
just running it over and over ;-)
Harold
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Two observations. First, it is the community
> that is changing rather than POV-Ray. There
> are more and more very sophisticated users.
Yep, looks like I'm becoming a crusty old relic <grin> More due to my
lack of programming skills or inclination than due to age.
> Secondly, I think you are on to something
> which is that the computer graphics environment
> is changing. There are many powerful and
> affordable CG packages now and the
> niche for POV-Ray is becoming more the
> hands-on programming specialty.
The main reason I like POV is primitive based modelling. I don't like
working with polygon meshes for all that they give you that little bit
more flexibility.
> I'm not a programmer, yet I'm working on
> two VisualBasic programs that generate
> POV-Ray script. One takes social science
> statistical data and generates attractive
> stereoscopic pairs of bar charts and other
> simple graphs. The other is very simple, it
> generates random parameters for the Julia
> fractal. Very fun though, I can spend hours
> just running it over and over ;-)
Why not just download Fractint? Surely it'd be quicker. ;)
Bye for now,
Jamie.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The programming and math features expand povray's capabilites
> beyond normal rendering application. I believe most high end
> packages have some kind of scripting language so it's nothing
> new.
>
> You can safely ignore there features and do vanilla scenes in
> your favorite modeller.
Oh, I will. I'll just stick to using whatever features Moray supports.
To be honest I was beginning to feel part of a seriously small minority
of non programmers on these groups...
Bye for now,
Jamie.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
