 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Loki wrote:
<snipped lengthy and meaningless reply>
Duhhhh... lets see here:
1) Image Map and/or Material Map
2) Bump Map
3) In order to get a patterned "finish" I assume by "finish" you mean
something like the specular reflection of the object, and any
highlights. The only way I know to do that is to pattern a full texture,
there is not as of yet a finish map. It can be argued this is a
deficiency or oversight.
Many of the texture schemes used in other renderers are not suitable for
raytracing. There are means to map a "channel" to a texture, etc..
IMNSHO, it makes no difference, really.
You'd be suprised what you can acheive by actually RTFM and shutting
your mouth for a few minutes... and while you're taking a well needed
rest from posting, hop over to povray.binaries.images and take a look
around. Gee, some of the texturing options can get *very* realistic,
using nothing other than the existing procedural texture system.
Why are you here on POVRay's newsgroups posting, anyway...?
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <mra### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> Loki wrote:
>
> <snipped lengthy and meaningless reply>
Pointless. Is this a friendly newsgroup or not?
> Duhhhh... lets see here:
>
> 1) Image Map and/or Material Map
> 2) Bump Map
> 3) In order to get a patterned "finish" I assume by "finish" you mean
> something like the specular reflection of the object, and any
> highlights. The only way I know to do that is to pattern a full texture,
> there is not as of yet a finish map. It can be argued this is a
> deficiency or oversight.
Precisely my point, but I don't mean to refer to this as a deficiency or
oversight, it is simply a different way of doing things that, based on my
experience and personal opinion, offers greater control over texturing
options.
> Many of the texture schemes used in other renderers are not suitable for
> raytracing. There are means to map a "channel" to a texture, etc..
> IMNSHO, it makes no difference, really.
Well IMNAHAYO (?) it makes a great difference when texturing a very complex
material to be able to control specular highlights and so on independently.
If you examine a real-world object you won't find any materials that have
perfectly uniform specular, diffuse and reflective properties across a
whole surface.
> You'd be suprised what you can acheive by actually RTFM and shutting
> your mouth for a few minutes... and while you're taking a well needed
> rest from posting, hop over to povray.binaries.images and take a look
> around. Gee, some of the texturing options can get *very* realistic,
> using nothing other than the existing procedural texture system.
I take it you actually type with your mouth open? I have read the manual
and I am aquainted with the texturing options as they currently operate. I
am also aware of the current impressive power of POVRay and have been
constantly impressed with its development over the years. I wouldn't dream
of knocking it, but I am also able to consider what could be improved and
make sensible suggestions to that effect. If other users can't accept a
suggestion without considering it trolling then that is up to them.
> Why are you here on POVRay's newsgroups posting, anyway...?
To be perfectly honest, after the response I've received I wonder that
myself. In fact I post and read this newsgroup because I am interested in
high-end graphics and I consider POVRay to be a very impressive rendering
engine. I will continue to use it regardless of the attitude of other
users.
L
-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Loki" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message
news:web.41c99740e72f5907692591cf0@news.povray.org...
>
> Pointless. Is this a friendly newsgroup or not?
Heh - you should try the firefox forum someday if you want to see some
really partisan folks in action...
IMHO you have received an unfairly rough ride in this thread, for which I am
sorry.
> To be perfectly honest, after the response I've received I wonder that
> myself. In fact I post and read this newsgroup because I am interested in
> high-end graphics and I consider POVRay to be a very impressive rendering
> engine. I will continue to use it regardless of the attitude of other
> users.
Please don't judge this group on the basis of one experience, or some users
(who may have been having a bad hair day in any event).
As long as you don't ever, ever suggest that povray is any way deficient or
could be improved, you should be fine... ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Paris" <par### [at] lycoscom> wrote in message
news:web.41bf577e1db2d3fb765651f90@news.povray.org...
> Other freeware packages on the web that
> attempt to do this are usually written by a single busy person, and they
> are hopelessly buggy or just plain do not work. This is the reason I
have
> come to this board to make this suggestion. Pov-ray is the most robust
and
> stable free rendering software in the world.
Paris, I have no way of judging your suggestions or analysis, but I did just
want to mention that I thought some of the reponses you received were, IMHO,
unnecessarily aggresive. So, on behalf of no one except myself, "sorry".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Melly wrote:
> Paris, I have no way of judging your suggestions or analysis, but I did just
> want to mention that I thought some of the reponses you received were, IMHO,
> unnecessarily aggresive. So, on behalf of no one except myself, "sorry".
*I* felt insulted when I finished reading some of the responses here. I
don't blame Paris for not coming back. Just because someone may or may
not fully understand something does NOT mean they should be treated like
an idiotic troll.
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 10:48:16 EST, "Loki" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>> Why are you here on POVRay's newsgroups posting, anyway...?
>
>To be perfectly honest, after the response I've received I wonder that
>myself. In fact I post and read this newsgroup because I am interested in
>high-end graphics and I consider POVRay to be a very impressive rendering
>engine. I will continue to use it regardless of the attitude of other
>users.
You just touched a nerve. Not everyone's like that about every topic.
Give us a chance. Take in Off Topic if you can be bothered. The caring
side shows better there. (Hmm, so does the nitpicking) :-)
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mike Thorn" <mik### [at] realitycheckmultimediacom> wrote in message
news:41c9a764@news.povray.org...
>
> *I* felt insulted when I finished reading some of the responses here. I
> don't blame Paris for not coming back. Just because someone may or may
> not fully understand something does NOT mean they should be treated like
> an idiotic troll.
Well, I cc'd my post to his email (and this one), so hopefully he might come
back....
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Loki wrote:
> Precisely my point, but I don't mean to refer to this as a deficiency or
> oversight, it is simply a different way of doing things that, based on my
> experience and personal opinion, offers greater control over texturing
> options.
Hmm. But I believe it may have been, or something that wasn't
implemented for one reason or another... If anyone has the history on
this feature, i'd be curious to know why it is the way it is.
> I take it you actually type with your mouth open? I have read the manual
> and I am aquainted with the texturing options as they currently operate. I
> am also aware of the current impressive power of POVRay and have been
> constantly impressed with its development over the years. I wouldn't dream
> of knocking it, but I am also able to consider what could be improved and
> make sensible suggestions to that effect. If other users can't accept a
> suggestion without considering it trolling then that is up to them.
>
>
>>Why are you here on POVRay's newsgroups posting, anyway...?
>
>
> To be perfectly honest, after the response I've received I wonder that
> myself. In fact I post and read this newsgroup because I am interested in
> high-end graphics and I consider POVRay to be a very impressive rendering
> engine. I will continue to use it regardless of the attitude of other
> users.
Umm. I mistook you for the OP on this thread. Thats what I get for not
paying attention to what is *really* going on.
My apologies about my attitude.
>
> L
> -
>
>
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Loki wrote:
> Mike Raiford <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>Many of the texture schemes used in other renderers are not suitable for
>>raytracing. There are means to map a "channel" to a texture, etc..
>>IMNSHO, it makes no difference, really.
> Well IMNAHAYO (?) it makes a great difference when texturing a very complex
> material to be able to control specular highlights and so on independently.
> If you examine a real-world object you won't find any materials that have
> perfectly uniform specular, diffuse and reflective properties across a
> whole surface.
What's wrong with using material_map?
--
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean
-----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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> What's wrong with using material_map?
Well there's nothing particularly wrong with it, it's just not a very
versatile or intuitive thing to use, especially when, for example, the bits
where you want less specularity on a surface don't match up to the bits
where you want less diffuse or reflection or whatever. With diffuse,
specular, reflection, transparency in both filter and transmit channels, on
top of image and bump maps - even with only one layer of each you're
looking at a lot of possible combinations to try to match up in Photoshop.
In fact POVs procedural and layered textures are indeed sufficiently
powerful to achieve good results, particularly on objects with a single
material, but something I've recently realised is that if you're using UV
mapping on mesh objects the ability to layer textures positionally comes
into its own as a much more sophisticated technique. Another example of
this kind of thing is if you have a UV mapped mesh and you want to create
dark grimy smudges in the cracks and crevices. Using POV alone this could
be difficult to achieve whereas using the image layers method we're
discussing it becomes a trivial case of painting a UV image with a dark
colour along the UV edges corresponding to the recessed areas of your
model, then mapping the image to the diffuse channel. That way the texture
of the object is not changed, but it picks up less light in carefully
controlled areas.
There is no doubt that using this technique is difficult, and I'm by no
means an expert, but i understand it enough to see its sophistication in
simplicity.
And regarding the attitude problem - as a recently joined member of this
newsgroup (though not a new user of POV) I was disappointed to see the kind
of treatment that a new member receives. However, having been a long time
member of other internet forums I am perfectly well aware that these things
always seem bigger than they are, and that none of it really matters; so,
apology accepted, though I'd urge you to be more careful in future - at
least if you're going to get feisty, make sure you're locked on the right
target.
L
-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
