Hello,
I've been wondering what the strengths and weaknesses of Povray are compared
to the other softwares(lightwave3d, kinetics, etc) for 3-d graphics and
animations.  What aspects of it put us on the cutting edge and where are we
at a major disadvantage.  The software is free but I'm sure that's not it's
only strength.  I am very naive so forgive me if it's blasphemy to even
ask.

While I'm here, I'd like to say that whoever wrote the Help Documentation in
the Windows POV-Ray 3.5  did an exceptional job.  I read the entire
Beginners tutorial and I'm constantly indexing the help  and I found it
easy to understand with out being windy.  It had a very nice balance of
rhetoric, examples and humor.  It was very refreshing to find documentation
that doesn't have to be reread a million times.
My hat is off to the technical writer(s).
Thanks
Tony


ton### [at] xenomechanicscom

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 31 Jul 2002 07:29:40 EDT, "Tony LaVigne" <ton### [at] xenomechanicscom>
wrote:
> Hello,
> I've been wondering what the strengths and weaknesses of Povray are compared
> to the other softwares(lightwave3d, kinetics, etc) for 3-d graphics and
> animations.

I don't know other packages well but consider my notes:

- POV-Ray is not limited to available plugins. If you want something not
available you can simple code this as script. Impoertant calculations can be
realized via precompiled functions used either in parsing or rendering stage.

- POV-Ray has sources available so you can simple play with own algorithms and
code creation of complicated objects directly into software

- POV-Ray works with mathematical representation of objects. I doubt there is
too much applications with isosurfaces. Some software can create tesselated
model of them but it is not accurate enough for some purposes

For example cosider morphing and objects at:

http://news.povray.org/fiq7cughd3561tlt8kb7u14und8q6i0os5%404ax.com
http://news.povray.org/fg04augo9ke8ni98rqi2isemctrbu2v2ac%404ax.com
http://news.povray.org/2ri5auo0d68j483jpesjkllaph1g6uu8j5%404ax.com
http://news.povray.org/n1f6auc72aumeak2cq502ev5btld314pb1%404ax.com

those are not the most beautiful scenes but shows modeling possibilities of
isosurfaces

ABX

Post a reply to this message

> I don't know other packages well but consider my notes:

And don't forget about the incredible community and user support!  If you
have any questions or problems regarding the program or any scene or
procedure you are trying to do, just ask and usually a least a few people
get right on it for a solution.

-tgq

Post a reply to this message

web.3d47ca24bdbb9d8188d4e3910@news.povray.org...
> I've been wondering what the strengths and weaknesses of Povray are
compared
> to the other softwares(lightwave3d, kinetics, etc) for 3-d graphics and
> animations.  What aspects of it put us on the cutting edge and where are
we
> at a major disadvantage.

Hmm, there should be a FAQ somewhere about this.
In a nutshell :
Advantages :
- free
- very high rendering quality
- very large flexibility and range of uses
- very friendly community, mostly hobbyists
- lots of free, ready-to-use povray material around the web
- actually easy to use once one has more or less mastered the script
- implementation of high-end features such as radiosity, photon mapping and
object instanciation (for meshes)
- users can add features because the source is available. For instance,
Povray had radiosity and photons well before a few commercial apps.

Disadvantages
- no native GUI modeller
- requires basic programming/scripting talent
- raytracing is still too slow for professional animation purposes
- no native support for usual industry 3d file formats ; script not readable
by other apps
- no native support for advanced modelling/animation features like inverse
kinematics or particle systems
- no native support for advanced shading, like cell shading or subsurface
scattering.

"no native support" here means that to get the job done the user will have
to rely on third-party app/macro or will have to write his/her own
utilities, or will be able to do with it with some important limitations.
For instance, it is possible to do subsurface scattering in Povray but it
can be very slow to render, or give imperfect results.

To create animations, the lack of GUI and of native animation features such
as IK, bones or particles makes it difficult to compete with other apps.
Animating a Mech Warrior or an insect using only Povray is feasible, but to
animate a realistic human will require another software.  People with a lot
of time and talent can obtain amazing results in Povray animation though
(see the "Tatooine Pod Race" by HE Day here
http://www.irtc.org/anims/1999-04-15.html)

For making stills, Povray can easily outperform software like Bryce,
Truespace or Vue, and in many cases it can give results comparable to those
obtained with high-end products like Max, LW or Maya. It may be necessary to
use and master an array of GUI modellers, specialised tools like Poser,
Xfrog or Terragen, file converters and paint software.

G.


--

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

While it is a point somewhat related to a few already mentioned, I would
add that Pov-Ray runs on many operating systems and platforms where
alternatives often do not.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 31 Jul 2002 19:11:36 +0200, "Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapginrafr> wrote:
> Disadvantages
> - requires basic programming/scripting talent

disadvantage ? it is the most funny thing for some :-)

> - raytracing is still too slow for professional animation purposes

watching can be considered as type of meditation

> - no native support for usual industry 3d file formats ; script not readable
>   by other apps

I agree about import but is script export so important ? so often repeated
'POV is raytracer not modeler' suggest the way how files should flow :-)

> - no native support for advanced modelling/animation features like inverse
>   kinematics or particle systems

yes

> - no native support for advanced shading, like cell shading or subsurface
>   scattering.

I hope there is some knowledge in community and we can wait for some patches
around it.

ABX

Post a reply to this message

in news:dcjlkus5pqib9qki580u4062matoh3atbl@4ax.com ABX wrote:

>> - raytracing is still too slow for professional animation purposes
> 
> watching can be considered as type of meditation
> 

And your boss accepts that excuse ?
;)

Ingo

Post a reply to this message

I was shocked to hear ABX say:

>watching can be considered as type of meditation

Not when you turn on 3 area lights and focal_blur.  Then it's actually
painful to watch.  Well it is on my comp anyway (PII 350, I gotta
upgrade, but I need to find a job first).

- Tim

Post a reply to this message

In article <dcjlkus5pqib9qki580u4062matoh3atbl@4ax.com>,
 ABX <abx### [at] babilonorg> wrote:

> On Wed, 31 Jul 2002 19:11:36 +0200, "Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapginrafr> wrote:
> > Disadvantages
> > - requires basic programming/scripting talent
> 
> disadvantage ? it is the most funny thing for some :-)

That it requires it? Yes, that is a definite disadvantage. Fortunately, 
it is fairly easy to learn.


> > - raytracing is still too slow for professional animation purposes
> 
> watching can be considered as type of meditation

Most people don't get paid to meditate...


> > - no native support for usual industry 3d file formats ; script not readable
> >   by other apps
> 
> I agree about import but is script export so important ? so often repeated
> 'POV is raytracer not modeler' suggest the way how files should flow :-)

"importing" isn't a problem, it is quite easy to automatically write POV 
script. The problem is finding tools to do so. It would be nice if some 
of the more standard formats were supported directly, though. It's just 
a lot of work to implement...

Agreed about export...it just isn't needed much.

-- 
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message

dcjlkus5pqib9qki580u4062matoh3atbl@4ax.com...
> watching can be considered as type of meditation

I once stayed an hour in front of the screen watching the render progress.
After a while people started poking me in the ribs because they thought I
was dead.
It's certainly a mystical experience, but it's bad for private life.

> I agree about import but is script export so important ? so often repeated
> 'POV is raytracer not modeler' suggest the way how files should flow :-)

I don't think that's important either for today's Povray users, but I can
see that in a production environment people could be interested in Povray's
scripting abilities and still want to be able to render the created scene in
another app.

> > - no native support for advanced shading, like cell shading or
subsurface
> >   scattering.
> I hope there is some knowledge in community and we can wait for some
patches
> around it.
The problem with the current implementation is that it's done by adding
features and therefore it tends to create a bloated SDL with lots of more or
less stable and meaningful keywords, as we've seen in Megapov. I really
liked Vahur Krouverk's Povman and its implementation of Renderman shaders
because it opens lots of opportunities, even though writing shaders is
definitely something for programmers. Now, in 3.5, we have uvmapping and the
possibility of tweaking functions to create patterns, but the manipulation
of finish and interior properties has limitations that still make difficult
the rendering of common real-life effects, such as blurred translucency.
This question would be better solved by a shader approach than by adding
keywords... particularly since there are many shaders already available.

G.

Post a reply to this message