> 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

> > 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.

First time I saw POV, I think I spent a long time reading the manual, 
gave up any thoughts of writing source code raw, had a look around the 
place I found POV and managed to find the old DOS version of Moray (I 
forget which version)

Bye for now,
     Jamie.

Post a reply to this message

>
> 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.

You're probably younger and more skilled than I ;-).

> 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.

Yes, the basic primitives are wonderful. It is actually quite difficult
to make a good sphere in some packages, like Animation Master.

> Why not just download Fractint?  Surely it'd be quicker. ;)

Well, I'm talking about 3D Julia fractals and the reason for
the program is to randomly explore the organic looking 3D
shapes. When I see one I like I can just save it for later. Maybe
eventually I'll gain an intuitive sense of what parameters will
produce what sort of shape and I'll be able to just write
the combination of five parameters to give the shape I want.

Harold

Post a reply to this message

> > 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.
> 
> You're probably younger and more skilled than I ;-).

27 with no programming skills to speak of beyond a 'Hello World' level of 
Basic pogramming...
 
And if you write your pov files by hand then you're more likely more 
skilled in POV code than me since I use Moray.

> > 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.
> 
> Yes, the basic primitives are wonderful. It is actually quite difficult
> to make a good sphere in some packages, like Animation Master.

I can't afford AM, so I don't know how friendly it is. I'd like to be 
able to afford it, but Real Life (TM) seems to be rather good at grabbing 
my money before I can spend it on such things.

Bye for now,
     Jamie.

Post a reply to this message

"Jamie Davison" <jam### [at] ntlworldcom> wrote in message
news:MPG.1612f4bc5ad6ca11989a1c@news.povray.org...
> >     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.
>
> First time I saw POV, I think I spent a long time reading the manual,
> gave up any thoughts of writing source code raw, had a look around the
> place I found POV and managed to find the old DOS version of Moray (I
> forget which version)
>
> Bye for now,
>      Jamie.

I started out reading the manual religiously.  Wish I had the patience to do
so, now :)

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 22:03:19 +0100, Jamie Davison wrote:
>> What has changed is us : we've become much more demanding in terms of quality
>> and realism, and this in turn calls for more complexity, which can be
>> obtained either by programming or by using modelers.
>
>I don't deny that, it's just that as time has gone on, more and more of 
>what I consider to be programming features have been implemented, such as 
>loops, conditional if statements, file i/o, and suchlike.  I don't deny 
>that they're useful in the right hands, it's just that to me they're 
>utterly useless, as I have no programming inclination (or possibly 
>talent) and thus will never use them.

Well, then they're not useful to you.  There are things in POV that I never
use, too.  Meshes, for example.  But I don't think POV would be the same
program without them.  Someone, somewhere finds them useful.

-- 
#local R=<7084844682857967,0787982,826975826580>;#macro L(P)concat(#while(P)chr(
mod(P,100)),#local P=P/100;#end"")#end background{rgb 1}text{ttf L(R.x)L(R.y)0,0
translate<-.8,0,-1>}text{ttf L(R.x)L(R.z)0,0translate<-1.6,-.75,-1>}sphere{z/9e3
4/26/2001finish{reflection 1}}//ron.parker@povray.org My opinions, nobody else's

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 17:35:55 -0500, Mike Hough wrote:
>I've already expressed my regret that the rational bezier patch was omitted
>from POV 3.5 because I feel the rendering method for patch type 2 was faster
>and more accurate in many cases.  Most likely I will patch it back into 3.5
>once the source code becomes available for my own personal use.

By the way, in case it was never made clear in the public newsgroups, the
rationale for not including the rational bezier was that even its author 
didn't think it was finished enough to put in a release.

-- 
#macro R(L P)sphere{L F}cylinder{L P F}#end#macro P(V)merge{R(z+a z)R(-z a-z)R(a
-z-z-z a+z)torus{1F clipped_by{plane{a 0}}}translate V}#end#macro Z(a F T)merge{
P(z+a)P(z-a)R(-z-z-x a)pigment{rgbf 1}hollow interior{media{emission 3-T}}}#end 
Z(-x-x.2x)camera{location z*-10rotate x*90normal{bumps.02scale.05}}

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 20:07:32 +0100, Jamie Davison
<jam### [at] ntlworldcom> wrote:

>Is it just me, or does POV seem to be turning more and more into a 
>programmers toy...
>
 some snippage
>
>Bye for now,
>     Jamie.

	Yes, you are correct.  POV-Ray has become a programmers
toy.  This is a cool thing.  I've started to use povray for little
silly non-pov tasks (because it is faster to create than in c),
such as that random food-menu creator I posted awhile back.
POV-Ray is also good for reading a file of numbers and
generating totals and averages, etc.  I *think* povray was used
to tally the votes on the POV-Ray logo contest.
	Also POV-Ray is a mathematicians toy.  :)

Pete

Post a reply to this message

nospam wrote:
>         Also POV-Ray is a mathematicians toy.  :)

Wouldn't you say, that programming is also a mathematician's toy, hence
anything that's a programmer's toy is a mathematician's toy. ;)

-- 
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

"nospam" wrote:
> POV-Ray is also good for reading a file of numbers and
> generating totals and averages, etc.  I *think* povray was
> used to tally the votes on the POV-Ray logo contest.

I can confirm this. :)

> Also POV-Ray is a mathematicians toy.  :)

Indeed...

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World:    http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated June 26)
POV-Ray Users:   http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Webring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message