On 2/15/2016 7:38 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> My copies, amended as mentioned above, date back to 2004. Afaik, these
> are the latest copies in circulation. I attach them here. filerock.inc
> has not changed over the years, I believe.
>

Here's the code for a scene made for the old version of makerock.inc. 
When I try to substitute the version you provided, I get an error at 
line 250 saying an object is missing. How has usage changed between 
versions?


Mike

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'boulder.pov.txt' (7 KB)

On 2/15/2016 5:19 AM, posfan12 wrote:
> "Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlnet> wrote:
>> "Hughes, B." <bob### [at] charternet> schreef in bericht
>> news:40d16008$2@news.povray.org...
>>> "Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlnet> wrote in message
>>> news:40d1490e@news.povray.org...
>>>>
>>>> Rocks are easy to make in POV-Ray with the help of existing utilities,
>> all
>>>> producing meshes:
>>>> - Steven Pigeon's PovRockGen.exe
>>>> - John Van Sickle's rock.inc
>>> 8<
>>>> - Bob Hughes' makerock.inc, which is a variation on rock.inc
>>>
>>> Yikes! Um, sorry Thomas. I don't believe I even made changes to that,
>> aside
>>> from perhaps renaming the include file. In fact, I find two of those here.
>>> One called makerock.inc, the other mossrock.inc which doesn't write the
>> mesh
>>> to a new file. Probably attained for and used in a mossy rock rendering I
>>> did years ago.
>>>
>>> I also think I e-mailed a copy to someone a little while back but it has
>> no
>>> mention of my name within the text of the file. So, everyone can strike me
>>> from their memories and hopefully John will forgive me my trespasses.
>>> Heh-heh.
>>> :-)
>>>
>> As a matter of fact, you e-mailed it to me! Looking at the files:
>> There are slight differences between the 'original' rock.inc and
>> makerock.inc. I took the liberty then to add the writing to mesh. I recorded
>> all this in the header of my copy of course.
>>
>> Thomas
>
> Does anyone know who has the "latest" edition of this include? And what are the
> changes?
>
>
> Mike
>
>

I am trying to take the difference of one large instance of the rock and 
a smaller version of the same object, like this.

difference
{
	object
	{
		Rock
		double_illuminate
		texture {RockTex}
		texture {LichenTex}
		transform {RockTrans}
		scale 48
		rotate y * -90
	}
	object
	{
		Rock
		scale 16
	}
	plane {+y, 0}
}


But instead of a large rock with a smaller rock-shaped hole in it, both 
rocks simply disappear. Is there an issue when taking the difference of 
one mesh object from another? Can mesh objects not be used in CSG?


Mike

Post a reply to this message

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Le 15/02/2016 18:10, Mike Horvath a écrit :
> 
> 
> But instead of a large rock with a smaller rock-shaped hole in it,
> both rocks simply disappear. Is there an issue when taking the
> difference of one mesh object from another? Can mesh objects not be
> used in CSG?

When mesh is used in csg like difference or intersection, it must have
an interior vector (and it must be a closed volume).


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iJwEAQEIAAYFAlbCCo0ACgkQhKAm8mTpkW1bOwP/Xqiht6O2rx8d4pZw6Rc6Ns3u
pWxBexmcglZZ83Z74IJFnsGFhEvAdPheUiViiTnfEFpD4y6mkrhDWeVG+BlCWuaR
Jet7eOqm5QztWZXXK3BBWowajvhKHS5UNZLjrWsGiRm691ychLKSqFXw7Dq4qQPD
h46+14Lj5BfROb9Kmzw=
=v/Yq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Post a reply to this message

On 2/15/2016 12:27 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> When mesh is used in csg like difference or intersection, it must have
> an interior vector (and it must be a closed volume).

What behavior occurs if it doesn't?


Mike

Post a reply to this message

Am 15.02.2016 um 18:10 schrieb Mike Horvath:

> I am trying to take the difference of one large instance of the rock and
> a smaller version of the same object, like this.
...
> But instead of a large rock with a smaller rock-shaped hole in it, both
> rocks simply disappear. Is there an issue when taking the difference of
> one mesh object from another? Can mesh objects not be used in CSG?

The meshes probably lack an inside_vector.

The proper syntax is

    mesh { ... inside_vector DIRECTION }
    mesh2 { ... inside_vector DIRECTION }

where DIRECTION is any vector other than <0,0,0>. The value usually
doesn't matter, but if you experience artifacts, changing the value
might be worth trying (you want to avoid directions that are
almost-but-not-quite parallel to any of the mesh's surfaces). What it
does is that to test whether a given point is inside the mesh POV-Ray
will trace a ray from there in the specified direction, and check
whether it intersects the mesh an even or odd number of times.

The inside_vector is necessary for all CSG operations except "union", as
well as for the "inside()" function.

Post a reply to this message

Am 15.02.2016 um 19:00 schrieb Mike Horvath:
> On 2/15/2016 12:27 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>> When mesh is used in csg like difference or intersection, it must have
>> an interior vector (and it must be a closed volume).
> 
> What behavior occurs if it doesn't?

Doesn't what?

Doesn't have an inside_vector?
In that case the mesh is defined to have no inside, giving unexpected
results in any non-union CSG (including, but not limited to, all other
participating objects becoming entirely invisible).

Isn't a closed volume?
In that case you may get artifacts if you use it in any non-union CSG
(surfaces of the other participating objects being visible or invisible
at the wrong places).

Post a reply to this message

On 15-2-2016 17:24, Mike Horvath wrote:

> Both makerock.inc and rock.inc say they "make rock meshes", and have a
> similar file size. What do the two files do? How are they different?
>

In the copies you provided (from Abe) filerock.inc was already present, 
so you can safely take that one.

makerock.inc and rock.inc do the same indeed. makerock.inc (Bob Hugues) 
is a slightly changed version of rock.inc (John VanSickle); in that 
sense, makerock.inc is the latest version.


-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Sven Littkowski <jam### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> And I am trying to find a page still having PovRock.exe, and also a true
> Windows version of the older DOS command line program STL2POV.

My Readme.txt file for STL2POV says it was released 2011-6-22, and it's still a
command line utility.
Maybe there's a generic windows thing that GUI's any given command prompt
utility...

Post a reply to this message

If I could get its source code, i could maybe develop a real Windows
version. I would use Delphi (Pascal).

On 16.02.2016 13:44, Bald Eagle wrote:
> My Readme.txt file for STL2POV says it was released 2011-6-22, and it's still a
> command line utility.
> Maybe there's a generic windows thing that GUI's any given command prompt
> utility...

Post a reply to this message