 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Todd Carnes <tod### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> On 2015-11-21 06:14, LanuHum wrote:
> > You want to have the adequate editor for Povray?
> > My experience shows that you aren't interested in it!
>
> Bishop 3D & Wings 3D both export to POV-Ray.
>
> As for your comments regarding kpovmodeler, the thread that is
> referenced in that bug report is misleading at best.
>
> For instance, it claims that the source has been updated to Qt5. That is
> not true. In fact, the source is set up to compile for KDE 3 and Qt 4.
>
> I have recently (yesterday) downloaded the so-called kpovmodeler-Qt5
> source in hopes of reviving it, but it looks like it will NOT be an easy
> task.
>
> My hope is to get rid of all the KDE crap and make it a pure Qt 5 app,
> but that's not something that will happen any time soon.
>
> Todd
wings3d - only mesh
blender - all shapes. The desire and support is necessary
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 21.11.2015 um 15:14 schrieb LanuHum:
> You want to have the adequate editor for Povray?
> My experience shows that you aren't interested in it!
> Blender? Yes, has problems, but Povray has no that it would be impossible to
> present lists.
> My notes allow to connect any material created by you, but to you isn't present
> to this interest. What do you want? Blender can be built as the Python module.
> Having desire it is possible to write own graphical representation, using import
> bpy(import blender)
You're doing a good job trying to bridge the gap between Blender and
POV-Ray, but there's one thing you can't accomplish, which Anthony
expressed discontent about:
Blender can't import POV-Ray geometry.
As a matter of fact, in a strict sense, Blender can't /import/ anything
from POV-Ray at all. It is possible to paste POV-Ray code snippets into
Blender scenes, but they remain POV-Ray code snippets; Blender has no
idea what they mean, and can't do anything with them except feed them
back to POV-Ray.
Because Blender can't import POV-Ray geometry, its cloth simulation
can't be used for existing POV-Ray scenes.
It is not your fault that this is still impossible; as a matter of fact,
it is fundamentally impossible (well, actually just highly infeasible)
to solve this issue at the Blender side.
What is really needed is an effort from the POV-Ray team to either (a)
add export functionality to POV-Ray, so that scenes can be exported in
popular geometry formats that can then be imported into Blender, or (b)
decouple POV-Ray's parser code from the main program, making it a
library that can be used in other projects, like a Blender import module.
Some people have also tried solution (c), which is programming a parser
for POV-Ray files from scratch, but with so many quirks in POV-Ray's
language it is virtually unavoidable that it behaves differently from
the original, so I think that's not a viable approach in the long run.
The POV-Ray team does have (b) comparatively high on the agenda, but
we're not there yet, and in contrast to your work there is nothing fancy
we can show right now, as it is all about modifying the underlying
architecture.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/21/2015 2:14 PM, LanuHum wrote:
> You want to have the adequate editor for Povray?
> My experience shows that you aren't interested in it!
Some history:
For a lot of people, PovRay was a "scripting" program and using a GUI
was a cheat.
Note. I am not saying that Clipka thinks that. But it is how PovRay grew up.
> Blender? Yes, has problems, but Povray has no that it would be impossible to
> present lists.
If I understand you. That is good.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/21/2015 6:56 PM, clipka wrote:
> What is really needed is an effort from the POV-Ray team to either (a)
> add export functionality to POV-Ray, so that scenes can be exported in
> popular geometry formats that can then be imported into Blender, or (b)
> decouple POV-Ray's parser code from the main program, making it a
> library that can be used in other projects, like a Blender import module.
>
> Some people have also tried solution (c), which is programming a parser
> for POV-Ray files from scratch, but with so many quirks in POV-Ray's
> language it is virtually unavoidable that it behaves differently from
> the original, so I think that's not a viable approach in the long run.
>
>
> The POV-Ray team does have (b) comparatively high on the agenda, but
> we're not there yet, and in contrast to your work there is nothing fancy
> we can show right now, as it is all about modifying the underlying
> architecture.
Very interesting to read. :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 21.11.2015 um 15:14 schrieb LanuHum:
>
> > You want to have the adequate editor for Povray?
> > My experience shows that you aren't interested in it!
> > Blender? Yes, has problems, but Povray has no that it would be impossible to
> > present lists.
> > My notes allow to connect any material created by you, but to you isn't present
> > to this interest. What do you want? Blender can be built as the Python module.
> > Having desire it is possible to write own graphical representation, using import
> > bpy(import blender)
>
> You're doing a good job trying to bridge the gap between Blender and
> POV-Ray, but there's one thing you can't accomplish, which Anthony
> expressed discontent about:
>
> Blender can't import POV-Ray geometry.
>
> As a matter of fact, in a strict sense, Blender can't /import/ anything
> from POV-Ray at all. It is possible to paste POV-Ray code snippets into
> Blender scenes, but they remain POV-Ray code snippets; Blender has no
> idea what they mean, and can't do anything with them except feed them
> back to POV-Ray.
>
> Because Blender can't import POV-Ray geometry, its cloth simulation
> can't be used for existing POV-Ray scenes.
>
> It is not your fault that this is still impossible; as a matter of fact,
> it is fundamentally impossible (well, actually just highly infeasible)
> to solve this issue at the Blender side.
>
> What is really needed is an effort from the POV-Ray team to either (a)
> add export functionality to POV-Ray, so that scenes can be exported in
> popular geometry formats that can then be imported into Blender, or (b)
> decouple POV-Ray's parser code from the main program, making it a
> library that can be used in other projects, like a Blender import module.
>
> Some people have also tried solution (c), which is programming a parser
> for POV-Ray files from scratch, but with so many quirks in POV-Ray's
> language it is virtually unavoidable that it behaves differently from
> the original, so I think that's not a viable approach in the long run.
>
>
> The POV-Ray team does have (b) comparatively high on the agenda, but
> we're not there yet, and in contrast to your work there is nothing fancy
> we can show right now, as it is all about modifying the underlying
> architecture.
Well. Russians speak: "We will dance from an oven"
We will forget the Blender.
There are means displaying Povray scene? OpenGL can draw Povray scene?
Or you created an image which present simulators isn't able to display?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/21/2015 8:02 PM, LanuHum wrote:
> Well. Russians speak: "We will dance from an oven"
Not as bloody as dancing on swords. (Scottish dance) ;-)
> We will forget the Blender.
> There are means displaying Povray scene? OpenGL can draw Povray scene?
Have a look at Blender3d. It uses OpenGL to display wireframe or shaded
views.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 21.11.2015 um 21:02 schrieb LanuHum:
> Well. Russians speak: "We will dance from an oven"
I have not the slightest idea what that saying means.
> We will forget the Blender.
> There are means displaying Povray scene? OpenGL can draw Povray scene?
Aside from POV-Ray itself, there are none that I know of. Some software,
such as Bishop3D, can handle a subset of POV-Ray's syntax, but not all
of it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 21.11.2015 um 20:19 schrieb Stephen:
> On 11/21/2015 2:14 PM, LanuHum wrote:
>> You want to have the adequate editor for Povray?
>> My experience shows that you aren't interested in it!
>
> Some history:
>
> For a lot of people, PovRay was a "scripting" program and using a GUI
> was a cheat.
> Note. I am not saying that Clipka thinks that. But it is how PovRay grew
> up.
It all depends on whether you view the creation of a scene as an
intellectual challenge or just a means to an end.
POV-Ray with its extensive scripting language can cater to both, but in
the former case using GUI modelling software must indeed be considered
cheating, while in the latter case it must be considered one of the most
rational things to do.
I consider both approaches valid in and of themselves.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/21/2015 10:06 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 21.11.2015 um 20:19 schrieb Stephen:
>> On 11/21/2015 2:14 PM, LanuHum wrote:
>>> You want to have the adequate editor for Povray?
>>> My experience shows that you aren't interested in it!
>>
>> Some history:
>>
>> For a lot of people, PovRay was a "scripting" program and using a GUI
>> was a cheat.
>> Note. I am not saying that Clipka thinks that. But it is how PovRay grew
>> up.
>
> It all depends on whether you view the creation of a scene as an
> intellectual challenge or just a means to an end.
>
That, I think, is the crux of the matter.
> POV-Ray with its extensive scripting language can cater to both, but in
> the former case using GUI modelling software must indeed be considered
> cheating,
That is certainly how the "pure coders" came across.
while in the latter case it must be considered one of the most
> rational things to do.
>
Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before
breakfast. ;-)
I prefer using a GUI so that I can visualise the scene. The intellectual
challenge comes from trying to shoehorn the correct code into the modeller.
> I consider both approaches valid in and of themselves.
>
So do I and I must say that, IIRC, you have never said "RTFM" which was
a favourite rejoinder to newbies when I started using PovRay.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2015-11-21 14:06, clipka wrote:
> It all depends on whether you view the creation of a scene as an
> intellectual challenge or just a means to an end.
>
> POV-Ray with its extensive scripting language can cater to both, but in
> the former case using GUI modelling software must indeed be considered
> cheating, while in the latter case it must be considered one of the most
> rational things to do.
I vote for the latter. I care about the end result. If a modeller can
help me get there faster and/or easier, that's a good thing. :)
Todd
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
