"stbenge" <THI### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht 
news:4900cf68@news.povray.org...
>
> Ok, you asked for it! :) Here's a little pattern I whipped up just now in 
> POV:
>

My goodness! *whipped up* you say?  I would have needed at couple of days at 
least...
I am deeply impressed. I could very well use these kind of patterns, and I 
shall... with due credit of course.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot escreveu:
> "stbenge" <THI### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht 
> news:4900cf68@news.povray.org...
>> Ok, you asked for it! :) Here's a little pattern I whipped up just now in 
>> POV:
>>
> 
> My goodness! *whipped up* you say?

Yeah, true hackers are humble. :D

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:
> "stbenge" <THI### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht 
> news:4900cf68@news.povray.org...
>> Ok, you asked for it! :) Here's a little pattern I whipped up just now in 
>> POV:
>>
> 
> My goodness! *whipped up* you say?  I would have needed at couple of days at 
> least...
> I am deeply impressed. I could very well use these kind of patterns, and I 
> shall... with due credit of course.
> 
> Thomas
> 

Oh no, don't get me wrong here. I whipped up a *variation* of a pattern 
I've been playing with for quite some time. Since the technique is well 
known to me, it didn't take long to arrive at the version I posted. I 
should have used better words :/

I got the idea from somebody who posted to p.b.i. a long time ago. The 
person made a sort of "rose window" pattern using loops and repeat 
warps. I tried it out, started tweaking some settings, and arrived at 
something fractaline. I don't think I ever posted my results... until 
yesterday.

Sam

Post a reply to this message

Thibaut Jonckheere wrote:
> Wow, this is really nice. And each time I change some parameters, I get 
> something different but also beautiful. Thanks for sharing this.
> 
> Thibaut

You're welcome. I have had the idea for quite some time, but to post it 
must have slipped my mind :/

Sam

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> stbenge escreveu:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> stbenge escreveu:
>>>
>>> Tapestry!  yes, no way of doing that in Blender alone, particularly 
>>> as it employs a loop to define further iterations to the warps... I 
>>> could try to manually do those transforms, or perhaps learn how to 
>>> script it with python... :/
>>
>> Are you backing down from the challenge? :)
> 
> I'm afraid so.  Very, very afraid. :P

Well, I won't hold you to it ;) We can't go on comparing corundums to 
tourmalines :)

> that tapestry texture is amazing.  I'm also reminded of Jaime's
> ceramic tiles macro that do it with function patterns:
> 
> http://www.ignorancia.org/en/index.php?page=Ceramic_Tiles

I remember doing something like this a long, long time ago. I think 
Jaime took it further than I did. Looks neat :)

> Yes, Blender's procedurals still have a long way until being as 
> featureful as Pov's... if the GUI doesn't get in the way, that is... :P

Everything hinges on that darned GUI! The developers have to find ways 
to incorporate new features into the program without making the GUI a 
difficult monstrosity to contend with. More procedurals would be nice, 
and wouldn't add unnecessary clutter.

Sam

Post a reply to this message

kike wrote:
> Hey guys! I didnt wanted to start a war between Pov and Blender!!! It was just a
> comment!! jejeje

There is no war! There's only mutual distrust ;)

> I'm still learning how to use Blender (I started 6 months ago, compared with my
> 8 years on Pov is nothing!) But anyway, my conclusion is that both are good but
> different. And that changing from Pov to Blender doesnt mean forgetting about
> Pov, because in my opinion Pov is still better than Blender in some features.
> Not only talking about quality but in terms of WHAT IS EASIER TO USE.

This makes sense. I can't see anyone abandoning POV-Ray altogether. 
POV-Ray's usefulness goes beyond any other program in existence, IMO. It 
will always be one of my favorite tools; it won't be leaving my tool bag 
any time soon :)

> For instance, both programs work with focal blur, but Pov's is easier to
> implement. Or motion blur (in MegaPov). I havent found this feature in Blender
> (probably it exists).

Here's how to get motion blur in Blender. You need to go to 
Scene(F10)>Render>and press the MBLUR button. Motion blur won't work 
unless you have animated elements in your scene (obviously). You may 
need to go ahead a few frames to see the effects fully. OSA samples 
equals motion blur samples. It's all fairly straightforward once you 
know where to look.

Sam

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:
> I am deeply impressed. I could very well use these kind of patterns, and I
> shall... with due credit of course.

Seconded. The one thing that code is missing is an explicit copyright and
license :D

Post a reply to this message

stbenge <THI### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>
>    #declare V=V+1/100;

Do you often use fractional loop counters?

Lovely pattern.

Post a reply to this message

Cousin Ricky wrote:
> stbenge <THI### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>    #declare V=V+1/100;
> 
> Do you often use fractional loop counters?

Yes, that's my automatic way of laying out a loop. I do this because 
variables which go from 0 to 1 are easier to implement in color_maps and 
sin/cos statements. It wasn't needed for this particular loop, but since 
POV-Ray treats all variables as floats, I can't see how it could harm 
things. I should have made it different so the code was easier to read, 
but like I said, I'm on automatic when writing code sometimes ;)

> Lovely pattern.

Thanks!

Sam

Post a reply to this message

stbenge wrote:
> Yes, that's my automatic way of laying out a loop. I do this because
> variables which go from 0 to 1 are easier to implement in color_maps and
> sin/cos statements. It wasn't needed for this particular loop, but since
> POV-Ray treats all variables as floats, I can't see how it could harm
> things. I should have made it different so the code was easier to read,
> but like I said, I'm on automatic when writing code sometimes ;)

The problem with doing #declare V=V+1/100; is that it might not reach 1.0000
exactly at the end of the loop (because of floating point inaccuracies), so
it might run one time too many.

Since integers are accurate (unless they're really big), I personally do
this:
#declare I=0;
#declare V=0;
#while (I<100)
  //useful code
  #declare I=I+1;
  #declare V=I/100;
#end

Post a reply to this message