Darren New wrote:
> 
> This, by the way, is the kind of fractal I'm talking about:
> 
> http://www.fractal-landscapes.co.uk/images.html

Oh come on - all those images use very crude meshes, admittingly quite 
efficiently hidden by detailed textures.  So all this from the point of 
geometry is really easy to make with POV-Ray, even with pre-3.5 versions 
and it would not be inefficient and no plugin system would make this 
better in any way.  But in addition POV-Ray offers much more advanced 
techniques for landscapes that beat these images by far in terms of 
geometric resolution, like:

http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/pov/pict/hole1.jpg
http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/pov/pict/eroded.jpg

Again you won't gain anything by the possibility of using 'plugins' 
(which like mentioned elsewhere is an extremely vague and undefined 
concept) - plugins would need to be written just like SDL macros, 
patches and external programs.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 23 Sep. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:cun081$2cb$1@chho.imagico.de...
> Darren New wrote:
> >
> > This, by the way, is the kind of fractal I'm talking about:
> >
> > http://www.fractal-landscapes.co.uk/images.html
>
> Oh come on - all those images use very crude meshes, admittingly quite
> efficiently hidden by detailed textures.  So all this from the point of

I don't want to sound like I'm speaking on Darren's behalf, but I think Darren's
entire point was that you should be able to do it without having to resort to
using meshes, but because the function needed to be iterative, it wasn't
possible with isosurfaces.

That was my interpretation anyway.

Lance.

thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au
thehandle - www.thehandle.com

Post a reply to this message

Lance Birch wrote:
>>>
>>>http://www.fractal-landscapes.co.uk/images.html
> 
> I don't want to sound like I'm speaking on Darren's behalf, but I think Darren's
> entire point was that you should be able to do it without having to resort to
> using meshes, but because the function needed to be iterative, it wasn't
> possible with isosurfaces.

And my point was that landscapes like on the URL above are entirely 
possibe to do in much higher quality in POV-Ray using existing means and 
without meshes and a plugin system would not improve this in any way. 
And also classical fractals can be rendered as isosurfaces using 
POV-Ray's builtin fractal patterns.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 23 Sep. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Christoph Hormann wrote:
| Neither HDR-Image support nor Renderman like shaders could be
| implemented as 'plugins' in current official POV-Ray even if it had
| plugin support and even if POV-Ray was a Windows-only program.
|
| And there are reasons why MegaPOV currently does not include the POVMan
| patch and exactly the same reasons would prevent a POVMan plugin (that
| would not be possible anyway - see above) from being available.
|
| So the idea that a plugin system would allow you to use two arbitrary
| patches that have not yet been combined in an unofficial version
| together without getting your hands dirty is not realistic.
|
	All right so my example wasn't perfect. I suppose you won't like the
next either since both patches are available together in megapov now:
clothray and mechsim. There was  time when those two where completely
separate patches and couldn't be used together. Plugins would have
made that possible (and would have removed the requirement for someone
to spend time integrating the two together, so that person could have
spend his time working on new features/enhancements).

	Moreover, image formats could be implemented as plugins although not
with the solutions I suggested; and renderman-like surface shaders
could be implemented with what I said (just like any texture/pattern
could) so you could use both together, just by taking the HDRI patch
and the renderman plugin.

| Just to avoid wrong conclusions.  The idea that POV-Ray 4.0 will have a
| changed license does not mean it will have a do-whatever-you-want
| license.  And to make it possible for people to distribute platform
| specific binary-only extensions is not exactly a very good reason to
| change the license.
|
	I didn't say it would have a "do-whatever-you-want license", nor did
I say that it should, nor that it would/should make it possible to
distribute binary-only extensions. The license could include a
provision stating that any code linked against the POV core should
follow certain restrictions like be open source and available for
free. This would allow more freedom than the current "patches-only"
model while keeping all pov-related code free.

		Jerome
- --
******************************
*      Jerome M. Berger      *
* mailto:jbe### [at] ifrancecom *
*  http://jeberger.free.fr/  *
******************************
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCDw7fqIYJdJhyixIRArX+AJ9Xd62qOa63hHGBocpREUCYvy074wCfVL91
b0Ox/F9L/XZmAVTgPhbmzqY=
=bcZJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Post a reply to this message

"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:cun2hh$2qb$1@chho.imagico.de...
> Lance Birch wrote:
> >>>
> >>>http://www.fractal-landscapes.co.uk/images.html
> >
> > I don't want to sound like I'm speaking on Darren's behalf, but I think
Darren's
> > entire point was that you should be able to do it without having to resort
to
> > using meshes, but because the function needed to be iterative, it wasn't
> > possible with isosurfaces.
>
> And my point was that landscapes like on the URL above are entirely
> possibe to do in much higher quality in POV-Ray using existing means and
> without meshes and a plugin system would not improve this in any way.
> And also classical fractals can be rendered as isosurfaces using
> POV-Ray's builtin fractal patterns.

But you can't have an iterative user-defined function to define an isosurface,
right?  I believe that's the kind of thing Darren is talking about - being able
to create your own iterative functions and using those to create objects,
without having to resort to approximating them with meshes.

It's irrelevant to this situation to say that you can use builtin fractal
patterns with isosurfaces because that only includes the julia and madelbrot
sets.  These two fractals aren't appropriate for generating landscapes; you need
to be able to have user-defined iterative functions, and that's not currently
possible.

Lance.

thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au
thehandle - www.thehandle.com

Post a reply to this message

Lance Birch wrote:
> 
> It's irrelevant to this situation to say that you can use builtin fractal
> patterns with isosurfaces because that only includes the julia and madelbrot
> sets.  These two fractals aren't appropriate for generating landscapes; you need
> to be able to have user-defined iterative functions, and that's not currently
> possible.

Could you please enlighten me how i am able to create my isosurface 
landscape scenes then? And no - i don't use custom patches for this, all 
LOTW2 scenes for example render with plain MegaPOV 1.0/1.1.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 23 Sep. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

>     All right so my example wasn't perfect. I suppose you won't like th
e
> next either since both patches are available together in megapov now:
> clothray and mechsim. There was  time when those two where completely
> separate patches and couldn't be used together. Plugins would have
> made that possible (and would have removed the requirement for someone
> to spend time integrating the two together, so that person could have
> spend his time working on new features/enhancements).

No, a clothray plugin for POV-Ray 3.1 would have had to be modified for 
3.5 just like the patch had to.  Same for mechsim.

The time spent 'integrating the two together' was exactly zero - except 
maybe a few shared keywords.

So if both patches were implemented with some theoretical plugin system 
(and i don't even want to try to imagine how this would have to look 
like for allowing the mechsim patch in the current form) they would not 
have been available to be used together a day earlier than they have 
been now.

To sum it up - your central argument seems to be a plugin system would 
offer the possibilities of patches without maintainance work in a 'write 

once - use forever' manner.  This is not the case.

And concerning Renderman-like shaders - i already explained that the 
POVMan patch would have not been possible to implement as a plugin.  But 

to have support for Renderman shaders in POV-Ray would of course be nice 

but this is not a plugin system (shaders are not dynamically linked 
external modules, they are possible to be implemented in a completely 
portable way).

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 23 Sep. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Perhaps you should read more carefully the OP's post to see what he's 
> asking for. ;-)  That, after all, is what I was responding to.

  I was not replying to the original post.

  Even when an article is in the same thread as the original article, that
doesn't mean that each and every single article is answering the original
first article.
  I was talking about why plugins in general are simply not feasible
in POV-Ray. I thought that was pretty clear.

> (Unless, perhaps, POV-Ray was written in Java or C#

  Please don't swear. There may be children reading this.

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Lance Birch wrote:
> You aren't obligated to respond, Thorsten, you aren't even obligated to read the
> posts.  If you are tired of the conversation you can just mark it as read and
> ignore it.

No, not at all as nonsense is undisputed sticks in some people heads better 
than glue.

> Maybe people have new ideas that weren't thought of in previous discussions;

No, they have no, really <sigh>

	Thorsten

Post a reply to this message

"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:cun70p$3l5$1@chho.imagico.de...
> Lance Birch wrote:
> >
> > It's irrelevant to this situation to say that you can use builtin fractal
> > patterns with isosurfaces because that only includes the julia and madelbrot
> > sets.  These two fractals aren't appropriate for generating landscapes; you
need
> > to be able to have user-defined iterative functions, and that's not
currently
> > possible.
>
> Could you please enlighten me how i am able to create my isosurface
> landscape scenes then? And no - i don't use custom patches for this, all
> LOTW2 scenes for example render with plain MegaPOV 1.0/1.1.

To my knowledge none of them use fractal-based formulas, they are based on
patterns that aren't fractal in nature, or am I mistaken?

Lance.

thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au
thehandle - www.thehandle.com

Post a reply to this message