SharkD wrote:

> Lines and polylines. Remember that SVG primitives need a stroke and/or 
> fill in order to be visible.

But if you need to give two end points and a stroke width, wouldn't
your "line" primitive in effect end up to be a cylinder? And a polyline
with a round stroke is essentially a sphere_sweep with linear_spline.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/10/2009 6:06 AM, Christian Froeschlin wrote:
> SharkD wrote:
>
>> Lines and polylines. Remember that SVG primitives need a stroke and/or
>> fill in order to be visible.
>
> But if you need to give two end points and a stroke width, wouldn't
> your "line" primitive in effect end up to be a cylinder? And a polyline
> with a round stroke is essentially a sphere_sweep with linear_spline.

Not if it's a 2D primitive, no.

Mike

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote in message 
news:4af8c0f7@news.povray.org...
> SharkD schrieb:
>> On 11/9/2009 7:59 PM, clipka wrote:
>>> Like, for instance?
>>>
>>> I guess you're talking about extruded 2D shapes, right?
>>
>> That, or treat them like patch primitives.
>
> Well, how about cylinder and box for circles, ellipses and rectangles, 
> text for text, and linear prisms for polygons.
>
> Lines and polylines don't seem to make much sense in a solid 3D world.
>
> What's left?

There are plenty of shapes, but if they were 2D primitives, perhaps they 
could be optimized for better performance. Especially for making an 
animation. But then, that would be getting away from the core of what POV 
is.

I use it for 2D work not because it's necessarily the best choice or the 
fastest, but I already know the SDL really well, and I'm not familiar with 
any script based plotting and graphing engines.

I did play around with using XNA to do real time animated 3D plots, but I 
never did find it to be worth the trouble. Honestly, if you're going to roll 
your own that way, it's just as easy to call the managed DirectX assemblies 
yourself. (Yes, I can program in C++ or even x86 assembler, but sometimes 
letting the computer do the work for me gives me more time to play...)

Post a reply to this message

SharkD schrieb:
> On 11/10/2009 6:06 AM, Christian Froeschlin wrote:
>> SharkD wrote:
>>
>>> Lines and polylines. Remember that SVG primitives need a stroke and/or
>>> fill in order to be visible.
>>
>> But if you need to give two end points and a stroke width, wouldn't
>> your "line" primitive in effect end up to be a cylinder? And a polyline
>> with a round stroke is essentially a sphere_sweep with linear_spline.
> 
> Not if it's a 2D primitive, no.

Maybe you should be more specific on how you'd expect the "2D primitive" 
to render.

You can't render a line using raytracing. The rays would virtually never 
hit it.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/10/2009 10:56 AM, clipka wrote:
> Maybe you should be more specific on how you'd expect the "2D primitive"
> to render.
>
> You can't render a line using raytracing. The rays would virtually never
> hit it.

The same is true with SVG. If a line doesn't have a stroke or fill it 
won't be visible. With a stroke or fill the results is a rectangle.

Mike

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote in message 
news:4af98d37$1@news.povray.org...
> Maybe you should be more specific on how you'd expect the "2D primitive" 
> to render.
>
> You can't render a line using raytracing. The rays would virtually never 
> hit it.

I wonder if 2D stuff could be added as a post processing effect; that would 
be shapes and such that would be added onto the image plane. I've got a 
whole rack of post effects I'd like to see in POV, and that one might have 
it's uses. If done as a post effect, I'm sure it would be faster to animate 
then using the camera mapping macros.

Post a reply to this message

SharkD schrieb:

>> You can't render a line using raytracing. The rays would virtually never
>> hit it.
> 
> The same is true with SVG. If a line doesn't have a stroke or fill it 
> won't be visible. With a stroke or fill the results is a rectangle.

... then use a rectangle :-P

Post a reply to this message

Captain Jack schrieb:

> I wonder if 2D stuff could be added as a post processing effect; that would 
> be shapes and such that would be added onto the image plane. I've got a 
> whole rack of post effects I'd like to see in POV, and that one might have 
> it's uses. If done as a post effect, I'm sure it would be faster to animate 
> then using the camera mapping macros. 

I guess you know the answer already...

"Damn it Jim, I'm a doctor, not an image post-processor!"


You want automatic postprocessing of your rendered image? add 
Post_Frame_Command="imagemagick ... " to your INI file.

(Not that there's any "imagemagick" command in the ImageMagick package, 
but I guess you get the point...)

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote in message 
news:4af9b51d@news.povray.org...
> Captain Jack schrieb:
>
>> I wonder if 2D stuff could be added as a post processing effect; that 
>> would be shapes and such that would be added onto the image plane. I've 
>> got a whole rack of post effects I'd like to see in POV, and that one 
>> might have it's uses. If done as a post effect, I'm sure it would be 
>> faster to animate then using the camera mapping macros.
>
> I guess you know the answer already...
>
> "Damn it Jim, I'm a doctor, not an image post-processor!"
>
>
> You want automatic postprocessing of your rendered image? add 
> Post_Frame_Command="imagemagick ... " to your INI file.
>
> (Not that there's any "imagemagick" command in the ImageMagick package, 
> but I guess you get the point...)

Oh yes, and I'm fully aware of the dangers of both "feature creep" and 
"feature bloat".

These thoughts just enter my head when I'm doing an animation and I wish it 
would run faster. I also spend a lot time while waiting for long renders 
shopping for computer upgrades and checking my credit limit. :D

Post a reply to this message

On 11/10/2009 1:42 PM, clipka wrote:
> SharkD schrieb:
>
>>> You can't render a line using raytracing. The rays would virtually never
>>> hit it.
>>
>> The same is true with SVG. If a line doesn't have a stroke or fill it
>> won't be visible. With a stroke or fill the results is a rectangle.
>
> ... then use a rectangle :-P

This is the perfect time for a rolleyes smiley.

Mike

Post a reply to this message