|
 |
Hi everyone,
is there any list of differences between POV 3.5 and MegaPov 0.7? The
POV 3.5's documents list all differences to 3.1g, and that is not so
useful list when trying to convert MegaPov scenes to 3.5...
Is there anything _superior_ in 3.5 when compared to MegaPov 0.7? 3.5
seems to have much of the MegaPov features, some of them with different
name and some with different approach, but are they better?
The first PITA I noticed was that 3.5 totally breaks images that contain
colors with some component value being more than 1 - and I haven't found
yet a workaround to make the images that count on that possibility to
look good on 3.5.
I have spent tens of hours during last month or two trying to create
gems that glitter the same way than real ones and now it seems my
methods work only with MegaPov...
--
/"\ | iki.
\ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign | fi/
X Against HTML Mail | zds
/ \
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
Jari Juslin <zds### [at] iki fi> wrote:
: Is there anything _superior_ in 3.5 when compared to MegaPov 0.7?
Of course.
- You can specify any number of parameters for a function, not just three and
exactly three. You can make functions which return floats or colors. You can
define pattern functions. You can make bitmaps from functions. You can use
splines in functions.
- There are also now three noise functions, which you can use in all patterns
which use the noise algorithm as well as your own functions.
- Light groups are more logical and better now (you can, for example, use
a "difference" of light groups).
- Isosurfaces have been made easier to use (no more wondering which method
should you use, for example).
- Interior texture works better now (specially with transparencies).
- Reflection syntax is more logical now.
- Transmit works more logically now with values outside the range 0-1.
- You can specify any exponent between 2 and 33 in the mandel and julia
patterns.
- There's support for reading JPEG and TIFF images.
- Lots of new clock keywords.
- You can specify float constants from an ini file.
To mention some.
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
>
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:3ba4739b@news.povray.org...
> > Jari Juslin <zds### [at] ikifi> wrote:
> > : Is there anything _superior_ in 3.5 when compared to MegaPov 0.7?
> >
> > Of course.
>
> No doubt about it.
> The only feature which I'll really miss is blurring reflection.
> Maybe someone can suggest me how to fake (to say the truth reflection blur
> IS faked...) it with normals without visible surface perturbations?
> Hopefully I was clear enough...
I tried this in the past, and doesn't works. Well, it "almost" works
if you adjust carefully the bumps size and scale to the image
resolution, but it needs the use of adaptive aa (+AM2) with a high depth
(+Rn), wich is *really * slow.
--
Jaime Vives Piqueres
La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
"Jaime Vives Piqueres" <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3BA6EF09.59104517@ignorancia.org...
> I tried this in the past, and doesn't works. Well, it "almost" works
> if you adjust carefully the bumps size and scale to the image
> resolution, but it needs the use of adaptive aa (+AM2) with a high depth
> (+Rn), wich is *really * slow.
*sigh*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
