nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> how about a Steampunk short code contest? ;)

  I don't think you can fit much steampunk in 256 bytes. (And personally
I'm not very fond of larger sizes for a short code compo because it becomes
exponentially more laborious to use the space meaningfully with each extra
byte.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Paul Bourke wrote:

> Is there interest in another one?

I'd be interested. Preferably stills and no steampunk.
Not sure if end of year is the best time, tends to be
somewhat busy. But then, it's only 256 characters, how
long can that take :-P

> Any funky new ideas for the competition?

How about some whacky rules restricting the content
of the text, such as forbidding use of the letters 'p'
and 'b'. Sorry folks no boxes or color_maps.

Maybe provide a sparse 16x16 ascii art template
with some characters which need to remain at the
given position? Something like a christmas tree
made of operator symbols.

Post a reply to this message

"Paul Bourke" <pau### [at] uwaeduau> wrote:
> It has been over a year since the last PovRay short code competition.
> The last one was the animation variant, results found here
>     http://local.wasp.uwa.edu.au/~pbourke/exhibition/scc5/final.html
> Is there interest in another one?
> Any funky new ideas for the competition?

I would like to see another animation round, but with a limit of 256 bytes.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> how about a Steampunk short code contest? ;)
> 
>   I don't think you can fit much steampunk in 256 bytes.

I don't think you noticed the emoticon.  It was a play on the fact that 
steampunk is so in vogue...

Post a reply to this message

"Paul Bourke" <pau### [at] uwaeduau> wrote:

> Any funky new ideas for the competition?

Please no steampunk.

How about a render time competition?  Items have to be less than some X bytes,
and are scored artistically on a basis blind to render time, but the ultimate
scoring is affected by the render time on your computer.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:49:49 -0500, gregjohn wrote:

> Items have to be less than some X
> bytes, and are scored artistically on a basis blind to render time, but
> the ultimate scoring is affected by the render time on your computer

That would seem to bias the competition in favour of people with faster 
systems - not a really balanced competition IMHO.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:49:49 -0500, gregjohn wrote:

> > Items have to be less than some X
> > bytes, and are scored artistically on a basis blind to render time, but
> > the ultimate scoring is affected by the render time on your computer

> That would seem to bias the competition in favour of people with faster 
> systems - not a really balanced competition IMHO.

  I think "your computer" referred to Bourke's computer. In other words,
all the renderings would be performed on the same computer, thus the
timings would be fair.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:18:05 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:49:49 -0500, gregjohn wrote:
> 
>> > Items have to be less than some X
>> > bytes, and are scored artistically on a basis blind to render time,
>> > but the ultimate scoring is affected by the render time on your
>> > computer
> 
>> That would seem to bias the competition in favour of people with faster
>> systems - not a really balanced competition IMHO.
> 
>   I think "your computer" referred to Bourke's computer. In other words,
> all the renderings would be performed on the same computer, thus the
> timings would be fair.

Oh, if that's the case, then yes, the timings would be fair.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:49:49 -0500, gregjohn wrote:
>
> > > Items have to be less than some X
> > > bytes, and are scored artistically on a basis blind to render time, but
> > > the ultimate scoring is affected by the render time on your computer
>
> > That would seem to bias the competition in favour of people with faster
> > systems - not a really balanced competition IMHO.
>
>   I think "your computer" referred to Bourke's computer.


No, Jim's computer.

Post a reply to this message

gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:49:49 -0500, gregjohn wrote:
> >
> > > > Items have to be less than some X
> > > > bytes, and are scored artistically on a basis blind to render time, but
> > > > the ultimate scoring is affected by the render time on your computer
> >
> > > That would seem to bias the competition in favour of people with faster
> > > systems - not a really balanced competition IMHO.
> >
> >   I think "your computer" referred to Bourke's computer.

> No, Jim's computer.

  You mean he should donate computing power to the cause?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message