My dear developers!
You do a lot of work.
I see it.
Your mistake - isn't present a fast render of curves.
Sphere_sweep - bad option.
Povray - is very good. But, you are stubborn. :)
Why you aren't interested time of a render
 scenes, but only quality???
Quality - it is very good, but speed is your prize.
You don't understand it - it is bad.
I don't advise. I recommend to strengthen your force.
You are strong!
Give us what isn't present anywhere!

Sorry, if you haven't understood me again :) :(

Post a reply to this message

> You do a lot of work.

I'm sure that over the long history of POV-Ray's development, that there must be
an astronomical amount of work that was done to bring POV-Ray to the stage where
it is at.   I'm sure there have been many, many hours of long, hard, tedious
hours of drudge work and thousands of largely unseen, thankless jobs.
I'm always happy that it has continued on, and is always improving.

> Your mistake - isn't present a fast render of curves.
> Sphere_sweep - bad option.

Yeah, sphere sweep kinda sucks, I'll admit.
I presently use a sphere for the first point, and then extend a cylinder out to
every subsequent point after that.   Seems to do the job smoothly enough and I
don't get the holes / choppiness of too few spheres, or the very slow results
from using 100,000 spheres to make a "line".

> Povray - is very good. But, you are stubborn. :)

True, but that's one of their greatest strengths!  ;)

> Why you aren't interested time of a render
>  scenes, but only quality???

I'm sure speed is always a desire - but not at the expense of quality.   PLENTY
of others produce products where speed is top priority.   Once computing power
catches up, then there will be quality AND speed.

> Quality - it is very good, but speed is your prize.
> You don't understand it - it is bad.
> I don't advise. I recommend to strengthen your force.
> You are strong!
> Give us what isn't present anywhere!
>
> Sorry, if you haven't understood me again :) :(


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFDcoX7s6rE

Post a reply to this message

"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> > You do a lot of work.
>
> I'm sure that over the long history of POV-Ray's development, that there must be
> an astronomical amount of work that was done to bring POV-Ray to the stage where
> it is at.   I'm sure there have been many, many hours of long, hard, tedious
> hours of drudge work and thousands of largely unseen, thankless jobs.
> I'm always happy that it has continued on, and is always improving.
>
> > Your mistake - isn't present a fast render of curves.
> > Sphere_sweep - bad option.
>
> Yeah, sphere sweep kinda sucks, I'll admit.
> I presently use a sphere for the first point, and then extend a cylinder out to
> every subsequent point after that.   Seems to do the job smoothly enough and I
> don't get the holes / choppiness of too few spheres, or the very slow results
> from using 100,000 spheres to make a "line".
>
> > Povray - is very good. But, you are stubborn. :)
>
> True, but that's one of their greatest strengths!  ;)
>
> > Why you aren't interested time of a render
> >  scenes, but only quality???
>
> I'm sure speed is always a desire - but not at the expense of quality.   PLENTY
> of others produce products where speed is top priority.   Once computing power
> catches up, then there will be quality AND speed.
>

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.

Peddie's Axiom: "In Computer Graphics, too much is never enough."

http://electronicdesign.com/displays/11-myths-about-computer-graphics

and finally, I don't mean to sound harsh or anything, but if you can't
contribute, don't criticize.

Regards,
A.D.B.

Post a reply to this message

"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:

> I'm sure that over the long history of POV-Ray's development, that there must be
> an astronomical amount of work that was done to bring POV-Ray to the stage where
> it is at.   I'm sure there have been many, many hours of long, hard, tedious
> hours of drudge work and thousands of largely unseen, thankless jobs.
> I'm always happy that it has continued on, and is always improving.
>

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

> > Your mistake - isn't present a fast render of curves.
> > Sphere_sweep - bad option.
>
> Yeah, sphere sweep kinda sucks, I'll admit.
> I presently use a sphere for the first point, and then extend a cylinder out to
> every subsequent point after that.   Seems to do the job smoothly enough and I
> don't get the holes / choppiness of too few spheres, or the very slow results
> from using 100,000 spheres to make a "line".
>

I try to use metaballs (blobs).
But it doesn't help at quantity of curves equal 150 000 and more...

> > Povray - is very good. But, you are stubborn. :)
>
> True, but that's one of their greatest strengths!  ;)
>

I long write the exporter. I haven't found support. It is interesting to me: why
users don't love Povray?
It isn't necessary to deceive himself! Even here only a few admirers.
I can analyse the number of visitors.
I've been told: "There are many renderer better, than Povray"
Users find other renderer. Why? Why doesn't interest developers
prestige?
The render of hair goes to Blender Internal Render 10 - 30 seconds. I don't
think that octree or kd-tree for this purpose use
They use cunning, but result beautiful.

I am a bad programmer. I don't want to listen to users. I want to do what I want
to do. I have no users.

I can't explain to users: why Povray renders hair 2 - 7 hours? Who has this time
for animation?
We receive beautiful hair in seven hours of a render? No...
http://sago.nl/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/blondhair.jpg
https://cdn.tutsplus.com/cg/uploads/legacy/079_Blender_Hair/preview.jpg
http://www.blendernation.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/luxrender-hair.jpg


> > Why you aren't interested time of a render
> >  scenes, but only quality???
>
> I'm sure speed is always a desire - but not at the expense of quality.   PLENTY
> of others produce products where speed is top priority.   Once computing power
> catches up, then there will be quality AND speed.
>

There have to be steps. The free software has no fast renderer for animation. In
animation the speed, than quality is more important. At fast change of shots you
won't manage to consider each shot.
Povray has animation. What for? to render one picture for an hour?

Post a reply to this message

"Anthony D. Baye" <Sha### [at] spamnomorehotmailcom> wrote:
> "Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> > > You do a lot of work.
> >
> > I'm sure that over the long history of POV-Ray's development, that there must be
> > an astronomical amount of work that was done to bring POV-Ray to the stage where
> > it is at.   I'm sure there have been many, many hours of long, hard, tedious
> > hours of drudge work and thousands of largely unseen, thankless jobs.
> > I'm always happy that it has continued on, and is always improving.
> >
> > > Your mistake - isn't present a fast render of curves.
> > > Sphere_sweep - bad option.
> >
> > Yeah, sphere sweep kinda sucks, I'll admit.
> > I presently use a sphere for the first point, and then extend a cylinder out to
> > every subsequent point after that.   Seems to do the job smoothly enough and I
> > don't get the holes / choppiness of too few spheres, or the very slow results
> > from using 100,000 spheres to make a "line".
> >
> > > Povray - is very good. But, you are stubborn. :)
> >
> > True, but that's one of their greatest strengths!  ;)
> >
> > > Why you aren't interested time of a render
> > >  scenes, but only quality???
> >
> > I'm sure speed is always a desire - but not at the expense of quality.   PLENTY
> > of others produce products where speed is top priority.   Once computing power
> > catches up, then there will be quality AND speed.
> >
>
> 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.
>
> Peddie's Axiom: "In Computer Graphics, too much is never enough."
>
> http://electronicdesign.com/displays/11-myths-about-computer-graphics
>
> and finally, I don't mean to sound harsh or anything, but if you can't
> contribute, don't criticize.
>
> Regards,
> A.D.B.


Sorry! I don't criticize. I repeat questions which are asked to me by users.
Beautiful glass, but the person who keeps a glass in Povray can draw Povray has
to be bald, otherwise it won't be beautiful.
Beautiful glass needs beautiful hair. The most powerful car with 100 kernels in
100 hours won't draw beautiful hair in Povray. It is told not by me. It is told
by users.
I am only a mail carrier.
I am asked - I ask you to answer users.

Post a reply to this message

For my part, I can with all self-confidence say, that I really love or
like POV-Ray very much. I never repended to have started using it in the
very early 1990s. And over all that time, the developers did a great
job. Well, ALMOST all developers, I should say, he he he!

Yes, rendering takes time, but I am willing to pay that price. I like
quality.

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.

But I know, as long as I have my hands and fingers, I will continue to
use POV-Ray.





On 27.02.2016 17:48, LanuHum wrote:
> "Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> 
>> I'm sure that over the long history of POV-Ray's development, that there must be
>> an astronomical amount of work that was done to bring POV-Ray to the stage where
>> it is at.   I'm sure there have been many, many hours of long, hard, tedious
>> hours of drudge work and thousands of largely unseen, thankless jobs.
>> I'm always happy that it has continued on, and is always improving.
>>
> 
> 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
> 
>>> Your mistake - isn't present a fast render of curves.
>>> Sphere_sweep - bad option.
>>
>> Yeah, sphere sweep kinda sucks, I'll admit.
>> I presently use a sphere for the first point, and then extend a cylinder out to
>> every subsequent point after that.   Seems to do the job smoothly enough and I
>> don't get the holes / choppiness of too few spheres, or the very slow results
>> from using 100,000 spheres to make a "line".
>>
> 
> I try to use metaballs (blobs).
> But it doesn't help at quantity of curves equal 150 000 and more...
> 
>>> Povray - is very good. But, you are stubborn. :)
>>
>> True, but that's one of their greatest strengths!  ;)
>>
> 
> I long write the exporter. I haven't found support. It is interesting to me: why
> users don't love Povray?
> It isn't necessary to deceive himself! Even here only a few admirers.
> I can analyse the number of visitors.
> I've been told: "There are many renderer better, than Povray"
> Users find other renderer. Why? Why doesn't interest developers
> prestige?
> The render of hair goes to Blender Internal Render 10 - 30 seconds. I don't
> think that octree or kd-tree for this purpose use
> They use cunning, but result beautiful.
> 
> I am a bad programmer. I don't want to listen to users. I want to do what I want
> to do. I have no users.
> 
> I can't explain to users: why Povray renders hair 2 - 7 hours? Who has this time
> for animation?
> We receive beautiful hair in seven hours of a render? No...
> http://sago.nl/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/blondhair.jpg
> https://cdn.tutsplus.com/cg/uploads/legacy/079_Blender_Hair/preview.jpg
> http://www.blendernation.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/luxrender-hair.jpg
> 
> 
>>> Why you aren't interested time of a render
>>>  scenes, but only quality???
>>
>> I'm sure speed is always a desire - but not at the expense of quality.   PLENTY
>> of others produce products where speed is top priority.   Once computing power
>> catches up, then there will be quality AND speed.
>>
> 
> There have to be steps. The free software has no fast renderer for animation. In
> animation the speed, than quality is more important. At fast change of shots you
> won't manage to consider each shot.
> Povray has animation. What for? to render one picture for an hour?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Post a reply to this message

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!

Mike

Post a reply to this message

Am 27.02.2016 um 23:48 schrieb LanuHum:

> I've been told: "There are many renderer better, than Povray"
> Users find other renderer. Why? Why doesn't interest developers
> prestige?

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.


>>> Why you aren't interested time of a render
>>>  scenes, but only quality???

We /are/ interested in render time; we just consider other things more
importand and more urgent at the moment.

Post a reply to this message

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.

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 27.02.2016 um 23:48 schrieb LanuHum:
>
> > I've been told: "There are many renderer better, than Povray"
> > Users find other renderer. Why? Why doesn't interest developers
> > prestige?
>
> 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.
>
>
> >>> Why you aren't interested time of a render
> >>>  scenes, but only quality???
>
> We /are/ interested in render time; we just consider other things more
> importand and more urgent at the moment.

Thanks for the answer! I understand. :)

Post a reply to this message