Mike Horvath wrote:

> On 2/27/2016 5:48 PM, LanuHum wrote:
>> I don't doubt that there is a lot of work.
>> I want to have fast and beautiful hair
>> http://sago.nl/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/blondhair.jpg
> 
> Nice render of Trump's toupee!
> 
That's not a toupee, that's a merkin. :)
-- 

Ger

Post a reply to this message

On 2/28/2016 2:48 AM, Sven Littkowski wrote:
> I agree with the above said. POV-Ray is unique, and should remain so.
>
>
>
>
> On 27.02.2016 23:24, clipka wrote:
>>   Trying bla bla manpower bla bla bla die out bla bla imitating them bla bla bla.


I wouldn't mind a bit of quickness here or there.


Mike

Post a reply to this message

Ger <No.### [at] ThankYou> wrote:
> Mike Horvath wrote:
>
> > On 2/27/2016 5:48 PM, LanuHum wrote:
> >> I don't doubt that there is a lot of work.
> >> I want to have fast and beautiful hair
> >> http://sago.nl/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/blondhair.jpg
> >
> > Nice render of Trump's toupee!
> >
> That's not a toupee, that's a merkin. :)
> --
>
> Ger


Merkin? What is it? the Dictionary doesn't yield result. :)

Post a reply to this message

> Merkin? What is it? the Dictionary doesn't yield result. :)

   Just do a search on Google images... :)

--
jaime

Post a reply to this message

Am 28.02.2016 um 10:55 schrieb Mike Horvath:
> I wouldn't mind a bit of quickness here or there.

... and I would be surprised if it would be any different.

Post a reply to this message

"Anthony D. Baye" <Sha### [at] spamnomorehotmailcom> wrote:

> Not according to Blinn's Law: "As Technology advances, Rendering time remains
> constant."
>
> This is because, rather than using new technologies to make already good scenes
> faster, we use it to make them better.  We use techniques that would have been
> too expensive, time-wise, before, but are now feasible due to faster equipment.

I would imagine that's true, although I was thinking along the lines of using
faster computer processing to render a similar scene.

Perhaps an idea to entertain would be something along the lines of the +q
quality level - be able to render this way or that (using different features,
not in the way +q is used) depending upon if you want speed or image quality.
Sort of like substituting with the closest font family when the one you want
isn't available.
As that would probably be difficult to implement, maybe just start off with
messages in the stream { #speednotes(true) } that suggest a potentially faster
method of doing or approximating the same thing.

Though if there are "code upgrades" where one method used for POV-Ray 3.1 was
chosen because the way it's done in {future} POV-Ray 7.3 would have been
impossible, then the speed switch would revert to the old internal code.

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:

> Trying to make POV-Ray more like the other popular renderers out there
> in order to attract more users would actually achieve the very opposite.
> They have a much greater share of the "market", they have a long head
> start in what they are doing, and I'd also guess that they have a lot
> more manpower at their disposal.
>
> If we don't want POV-Ray to die out, we must keep doing things our own
> way, and hope it will keep filling a niche.
>
>
> Of course that shouldn't stop us from looking at what others are doing,
> and let them inspire ourselves. But blindly imitating them -- that would
> be POV-Ray's end.

Yes, that was my unspoken thought.
"If you want to win, then do what the other guy _can't_ do.
POV-Ray has survived THIS long doing exactly what it does - better than any
other renderer - so, stick with what ya know.   :)

Post a reply to this message

Sven Littkowski <jam### [at] yahoocom> wrote:

> The only feature I am missing, is the ability to export POV-Ray scenes
> into a few other 3D file formats. If POV-Ray could be made exporting
> into the quite similar OpenSCAD file format, we could take over from there.

I think we could do that, Sven.
Though, I'd say that one would have to recognize 3 things:

1. POV-Ray and Open SCAD are similar, but fundamentally different in what they
do.   So there may only ever be an approximation in the conversion.

2. The time and effort it might take to develop such a thing would probably
indicate that some, or a lot of things ought to just be rewritten in OPEN SCAD
rather than trying to be converted.

3. I've only ever created some rudimentary models with OPEN SCAD, so I'm not
familiar with all of its features and capabilities.   Perhaps OPEN SCAD would
have to meet POV-RAY halfway in order to better bridge the gap.

I'm currently working with laser cutters, and so I'm doing the same with SVG.
I'd rather have DXF output - but jeez, what a crappy format  :O

Post a reply to this message

On 2/28/2016 12:58 PM, Bald Eagle wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>
>> Trying to make POV-Ray more like the other popular renderers out there
>> in order to attract more users would actually achieve the very opposite.
>> They have a much greater share of the "market", they have a long head
>> start in what they are doing, and I'd also guess that they have a lot
>> more manpower at their disposal.
>>
>> If we don't want POV-Ray to die out, we must keep doing things our own
>> way, and hope it will keep filling a niche.
>>
>>
>> Of course that shouldn't stop us from looking at what others are doing,
>> and let them inspire ourselves. But blindly imitating them -- that would
>> be POV-Ray's end.
>
> Yes, that was my unspoken thought.
> "If you want to win, then do what the other guy _can't_ do.
> POV-Ray has survived THIS long doing exactly what it does - better than any
> other renderer - so, stick with what ya know.   :)
>
>
>
>
It is a niche program, PovRay is historic and follows a vision. It is a 
standard that other renderers can be measured against.
It is almost a religious tenet to keep PovRay as it is only better.

LanuHum and Mr are doing stalwart work in integrating PovRay into 
Blender. Which for people, like me, makes it possible to still use Pov 
as my renderer.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> On 2/28/2016 12:58 PM, Bald Eagle wrote:
> > clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> >
> >> Trying to make POV-Ray more like the other popular renderers out there
> >> in order to attract more users would actually achieve the very opposite.
> >> They have a much greater share of the "market", they have a long head
> >> start in what they are doing, and I'd also guess that they have a lot
> >> more manpower at their disposal.
> >>
> >> If we don't want POV-Ray to die out, we must keep doing things our own
> >> way, and hope it will keep filling a niche.
> >>
> >>
> >> Of course that shouldn't stop us from looking at what others are doing,
> >> and let them inspire ourselves. But blindly imitating them -- that would
> >> be POV-Ray's end.
> >
> > Yes, that was my unspoken thought.
> > "If you want to win, then do what the other guy _can't_ do.
> > POV-Ray has survived THIS long doing exactly what it does - better than any
> > other renderer - so, stick with what ya know.   :)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> It is a niche program, PovRay is historic and follows a vision. It is a
> standard that other renderers can be measured against.
> It is almost a religious tenet to keep PovRay as it is only better.
>
> LanuHum and Mr are doing stalwart work in integrating PovRay into
> Blender. Which for people, like me, makes it possible to still use Pov
> as my renderer.
>
> --
>
> Regards
>      Stephen

We need people to work on the Moray codebase.  I remember a call several years
ago for people to do code cleanup and rip out the proprietary and
platform-dependent stuff.

I would help if there was anything I could do, but my programming skills need a
lot of work.

I have done some interface design in Qt Widgets, and I've been thinking about
exploring JUCE Toolkit.  Both would be good options for the project.

I'd be willing to discuss if anyone thinks I could be of use.

Regards,
A.D.B.

Post a reply to this message