Warp wrote:
> 
> Tony[B] <ben### [at] panamac-comnet> wrote:
> : But both could do with some improvement.
> 
>   How can you improve perfection?

"They" did it often...

Fabien.

Post a reply to this message

In article <3a12904e$1@news.povray.org>, "Wlodzimierz ABX Skiba" 
<abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote:

> I think open sources are not part of the renderer
> if there is anything to do in 3d raytracing which is not supported
> in any 3d raytracer which one raytracer can be extended first
> with best distribution between users ?
> power of variations ?

I would include the source code as part of the renderer, since you can 
use the source code to extend the renderer. I might be a bit biased here 
though, since I am a patch writer...but I probably wouldn't be using POV 
if I couldn't get the source code.
BTW, POV-Ray is not "Open Source". It is copyrighted freeware with 
source code available, but there are restrictions on what you are 
allowed to do with it. I understand what you mean though...the source is 
available for modification and extension.

-- 
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/

<><

Post a reply to this message

I vote #6 and will add

#7 It's FREE!

Thank you creators and TAG team as well!

Alessandro Coppo <a.c### [at] iolit> wrote in message
news:3a130620@news.povray.org...
> Chris Huff <chr### [at] maccom> wrote in message
> news:chrishuff-9FA4C5.07472315112000@news.povray.org...
> > The renderer, or the scene language?
> > Is the language the only thing that is important, or is the renderer
> > important too?
> > 1: The language is the only thing that matters.
> > 2: The language is most important, but rendering engine is important
too.
> > 3: Both are equally important, POV is the combination of the two.
> > 4: Renderer is most important, but the language is important too.
> > 5: Renderer the only thing that matters.
>
> No, it is 6: enormous support by users (macros, tools, websites,
> newsservers, etc. etc.).
>
> If POV had the support of Panorama, and Panorama had the support of POV,
we
> would be talking on the on www.gnu.org area for Panorama....
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Chris Huff wrote:
> 
> 4: Renderer is most important, but the language is important too.

The reasoning?
An excellent rendererer would still be useful even with a relatively basic
language.
A scripting language with huge possibilities has little appeal when tacked to a
mediocre rendering engine (unless you like rendering plastic spheres in complex
patterns etc).
All IMHO of course.

-- 
Margus Ramst

Personal e-mail: mar### [at] peakeduee
TAG (Team Assistance Group) e-mail: mar### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message

Chris Huff wrote:
> 
> The renderer, or the scene language?

Or that it serves the needs of those who use it. In it's present form
it serves my needs. If it changes dramatically it may no longer do so.

I hope this doesn't happen.

-- 
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
> Tony[B] <ben### [at] panamac-comnet> wrote:
> : But both could do with some improvement.
> 
>   How can you improve perfection?

Layered patterned textures.

(I'm currently having a fight with that.  Gr...)
-- 
Francois Labreque | It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it
     flabreq      | is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed,
        @         | the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a 
  attglobal.net   | warning, it is by caffeine alone I set my mind in
                  | motion.
                               - Stolen from Badger's .sig file

Post a reply to this message

>3: Both are equally important, POV is the combination of the two.

I wouldn't be using pov today if it wasn't for the fact that the 
scene description language is easy to use, and it's got good 
documentation, and the quality of the output is superb. 

Wonder what I would have done for all of them hours if I didn't 
have POV? 

-- 
Cheers
Steve              email mailto:ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet

%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee  0 pps. 

web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/

or  http://start.at/zero-pps

  3:16am  up 37 days,  5:38,  2 users,  load average: 3.00, 3.00, 3.00

Post a reply to this message

Perhaps I should have phrased the question as "Why do you use 
POV"...I've changed the subject line to reflect that.
The results so far, not counting my own vote:

1: The language is the only thing that matters.
    0

2: The language is most important, but rendering engine is important too.
    0

3: Both are equally important, POV is the combination of the two.
    4

4: Renderer is most important, but the language is important too.
    1

5: Renderer the only thing that matters.
    0


Other:
Ken: "that it serves the needs of those who use it."(But why do *you* 
use it Ken? :-) )

Alessandro Coppo: "enormous support by users"

Robert J Becraft: The available support, and "It's FREE!"


Two votes were not included because of ambiguity:
Tom Melly(who apparently voted for 1, 3, and 5) and Greg M. Johnson(1 
and 2...or was it 1 or 2...or 1 and definitely not 2...).

-- 
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/

<><

Post a reply to this message

Chris Huff wrote:

> Other:
> Ken: "that it serves the needs of those who use it."(But why do *you*
> use it Ken? :-) )

POV-Ray has that rare ability to make someone like me with no natural
artistic abilities almost look good.

-- 
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

Chris Huff wrote:
> 3: Both are equally important, POV is the combination of the two.
>     4

I have to confess that this is at least my third attempt at
understanding POV over the years.  This time I've gotten a lot further
with it... the first time (around version 1.*, a number of years ago) I
gave up in confusion before I created anything with it.

The second time, last year, version 2.*, I got as far as making
cylinders and spheres, and gave up in confusion.

This time, with version 3.1g, I've gotten as far as sort of
understanding what I'm doing, and actually making recognizable things
with it.  This is a tremendous thrill to me, because I've never thought
of myself as someone who can create visual art... and to be able to type
in instructions to a program, and have it output something that looks
like what I intended it to look like is just about the ultimate headrush.

So my vote, as well, is for #3, though I would add to that the current
superb documentation.  The language is understandable, which is a bonus,
the renderer produces excellent images, which is a bonus, and the
current documentation, and most especially the tutorials at the
beginning of that documentation, are a huge bonus.

Plus there's the price.  It's hard to beat free. 8)

And, last but not least, there's you guys, here on this newsgroup, who
have been really kind in answering my stupid questions. 8)

-- 
Dawn McKnight      | "Who cares what the hipbone's connected to? I'm in Neurology!"
McK### [at] maccom   |					-- Justine Devlin, M.D.

Post a reply to this message