>> I love the SDL in POV, and for me it makes certain tasks quicker than 
>> using a modeller or CAD package.
>
> Other modellers have scripting languages too. In Blender you can modify 
> your scenes with Python scripts for instance. And you have the graphical 
> user interface that helps to arrange the camera, lights etc. without doing 
> hundreds of test renderings.

Yeh, although I haven't used the Blender scripting language, I use the one 
in my CAD program regularly to create parametric models that generate 
themselves based on a few core parameters.  For example if you were 
designing an engine, you could have a few variables like number of 
cylinders, cylinder bore, cylinder stroke etc, and then the CAD is 
automatically generated from those.  If you suddenly want to change the 
stroke then it's just a case of changing one number and then it's done.

Actually, come to think about it I remember using the scripting language in 
3D Studio Max.  THat was pretty flexible, allowing you to create and modify 
scene objects, as well as extracting data from them afterwards.  It 
obviously had a real-time 3D scene you could look around (like in Blender), 
and also several renderers built-in if you wanted a high quality output.  I 
guess that is more powerful than SDL, but unfortunately not free!

Post a reply to this message

"scott" <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote in message
news:47219b09$1@news.povray.org...

> I wonder what it is that has kept potential developers away from helping
> with POV?
>
> There seem to have been whole renderers written in the time it takes from
> POV to go from 3.6 to 3.7 beta.  Why is this?

Well, on the academic side, unbiased/physical rendering has become feasible.
Actually, there has been somewhat of a split, with the likes of Maxwell on
one side, likes of V-Ray on the other, and finally with Gelato on a league
of its own. Customers demand either extreme quality, or lightning speed
(well, both really, but we are still a few years off from that). POV-Ray's
model is aging, and is neither fast nor high quality, somewhat bloated
requiring too much fudging. SDL that is incompatible with anything else, and
closed source doesn't help matters either. B-rep modelling, whether mesh or
NURBS is also a must, neither animation nor manufacture is easy or natural
with implicit "modelling" as in SDL, which only made sense 20 years ago when
realtime b-rep modelling wasn't feasible on a budget.

Demand drives a product (even free ones), so that would explain POV-Ray's
falling behind the curve.

> I love the SDL in POV, and for me it makes certain tasks quicker than
using
> a modeller or CAD package.

With modern CAD and modelling applications supporting advanced scripting,
that's not quite true. And what is the criterion for speed anyway? Being
able to quickly place 1000 boxes or cylinders in two lines of code is
neither here nor there. Can you seriously outperform a NURBS modeller for
creating an industrial object like an electric shaver with smooth lines? Or
can you outdo likes of ZBrush or MudBox for a detailed character model, by
using CSG and isosurfaces? Pains me to say this, but POV is irrelevant for
modern tasks and occupies a niche market.

The saving grace would be if there were proper exporters/plug-ins for
popular modelling packages, supporting visual materials editors. Then, the
engine would be the focus and SDL a bonus, an option. But that's not going
to happen.

Post a reply to this message

delle <del### [at] ciaowebit> wrote:
> Pov-Ray is now a rendering engine of the "old" generation and, for what I
> see, there is no intention to move forward.

  See, it's exactly this kind of troll-posting which causes so much
aversion towards people spamming about other renderers.

  POV-Ray is the unfortunate victim of negative hype. One reason for this
is that POV-Ray has existed for so long and doesn't jump to every trend
which is being currently fashionable and hyped.

  There have been countless "povray-killers" during its history. Free
renderers which implement some new fad technique which is "the future".
Most of these hyped renderers have completed faded into oblivion. Some
have survived with a small following.

  For some reason the trend whores only see POV-Ray as a 15-years-old
renderer. It's not like POV-Ray never evolved nor implemented any new
techniques. However, the trend whores completely ignore them, and still
want to see POV-Ray as something of the past.

  For example, POV-Ray was one of the first renderers to effectively
implement photon mapping. It didn't help the negative hype.
  POV-Ray has implemented multi-threaded rendering which has received
praise, beating in distributing efficiency even many high-end commercial
renderers. But no avail, it still can't kill the negative hype.
  POV-Ray even went a bit with the trend and implemented HDRI (with two
popular file formats and all). Nope. The negative hype is unmovable.
No matter how much POV-Ray evolves and implements new techniques, some
people will always see it as a renderer of the past which has "no intention
to move forward".

  The current fad is this "unbiased rendering". By all means go ahead and
use some trendy renderer. Just hope it will not die in a couple of years.
Maybe it will become successful, with luck.

  That doesn't mean POV-Ray will never ever implement such algorithms if
they are good.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>  POV-Ray is the unfortunate victim of negative hype. One reason for this
> is that POV-Ray has existed for so long and doesn't jump to every trend
> which is being currently fashionable and hyped.

"doesn't" or "can't"?

>  POV-Ray has implemented multi-threaded rendering which has received
...
>  POV-Ray even went a bit with the trend and implemented HDRI (with two
> popular file formats and all).

"The current official version of POV-Ray is 3.6.1, which was released on 3 
August 2004"

So, in over three years of work we have got beta version support of 
multi-threading and HDRI?  Again, clearly the devs are working very hard, 
but why aren't more people helping like with other renderers?  What is 
turning them away?  What makes POV different to other renderers that have a 
much larger group of people helping write them?

> No matter how much POV-Ray evolves and implements new techniques, some
> people will always see it as a renderer of the past which has "no 
> intention
> to move forward".

Perhaps just because it moves forwards very slowly.  We need more people to 
help develop POV to make use of these new fangled techniques.  Perhaps they 
will die out as nobody uses them, perhaps they won't.  But unless POV keeps 
up it *will* be seen and known as an "old" renderer.  WHich IMO will be a 
big shame, as POV certainly does have some cool stuff still to offer.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> >  POV-Ray is the unfortunate victim of negative hype. One reason for this
> > is that POV-Ray has existed for so long and doesn't jump to every trend
> > which is being currently fashionable and hyped.

> "doesn't" or "can't"?

  What's that supposed to even mean?

> Perhaps just because it moves forwards very slowly.  We need more people to 
> help develop POV to make use of these new fangled techniques.  Perhaps they 
> will die out as nobody uses them, perhaps they won't.  But unless POV keeps 
> up it *will* be seen and known as an "old" renderer.  WHich IMO will be a 
> big shame, as POV certainly does have some cool stuff still to offer.

  That's why POV-Ray 4 will be different.

  My only fear is that the new "design by committee" of pov4 could kill it
in a few years in the exact same way as it has killed so many renderers
before.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> >  POV-Ray is the unfortunate victim of negative hype. One reason for 
>> > this
>> > is that POV-Ray has existed for so long and doesn't jump to every trend
>> > which is being currently fashionable and hyped.
>
>> "doesn't" or "can't"?
>
>  What's that supposed to even mean?

Is it because the development team decided they don't want to jump on any 
trends, or is it that they don't have the man-power to do it in a reasonable 
time-frame?

>> Perhaps just because it moves forwards very slowly.  We need more people 
>> to
>> help develop POV to make use of these new fangled techniques.  Perhaps 
>> they
>> will die out as nobody uses them, perhaps they won't.  But unless POV 
>> keeps
>> up it *will* be seen and known as an "old" renderer.  WHich IMO will be a
>> big shame, as POV certainly does have some cool stuff still to offer.
>
>  That's why POV-Ray 4 will be different.

I hope so :-)

>  My only fear is that the new "design by committee" of pov4 could kill it
> in a few years in the exact same way as it has killed so many renderers
> before.

Just needs a few people with a bit of brains to take charge, as with all 
projects.  It's not exactly the most complicated or largest group project 
ever undertaken.

Post a reply to this message

> 
>   That doesn't mean POV-Ray will never ever implement such algorithms if
> they are good.
> 

I would love to see the code (3.7 or more probably 4.0) abstract things 
enough so that adding objects, camera projections, texture patterns, or 
*whole rendering/lighting algorithms* to be added without having to 
touch too much core code. For example, adding a new rendering algorithm 
that is a forwards-raytracer that would work with all existing objects, 
cameras, patterns, pigments, and normals; only having to change the 
finish and maybe the light_source for the lighting features specific to 
the algorithm.

I saw a quite interesting renderer using forwards raytracing (I'm not 
sure if it's completely unbiased, looks good enough), but doesn't even 
have *CSG* on its scene description language. I want CSG, isosurfaces 
and a spherical camera; with *that* lighting.

Post a reply to this message

> that would work with all existing objects, 
> cameras, patterns, pigments, and normals; only having to change the 
> finish and maybe the light_source for the lighting features specific to 
> the algorithm.

Correction: oops, renderers that don't use the normal vector (like 
WinOSi[1]) won't work with normal{}.

[1] Note 2 in http://www.winosi.onlinehome.de/Docs.htm

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4721ca0a@news.povray.org...

>   POV-Ray is the unfortunate victim of negative hype. One reason for this
> is that POV-Ray has existed for so long and doesn't jump to every trend
> which is being currently fashionable and hyped.

Neither quality nor speed (both set-up and rendering) is hype, it's the
reality and business.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
...
> ...B-rep modelling, whether mesh or
> NURBS is also a must, neither animation nor manufacture is easy or natural
> with implicit "modelling" as in SDL, which only made sense 20 years ago when
> realtime b-rep modelling wasn't feasible on a budget.
...

It IS possible to model with NURBS in POV-Ray, by using SDL.

BUT it is very hard to model with it without having the
possibility to move the control points around (or changing
the weights or the knot vectors) with a pointing device
like e.g. a mouse.

-- 
Tor Olav
http://subcube.com

Post a reply to this message