Whoa... you did it*. Way to go! Our dreams are a reality! Now we can make
POV benefit from those nice video cards, and stuff. Can you make a patch for
reading directly from 3DS and other file formats directly? :)


* "it" being "the tesselation of POV objects".

Post a reply to this message

Would this alternative syntax be better?

tesselate
{ MyObject
  accuracy INTEGER
  [smooth]
  [inside_vector VECTOR]
}

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

I modified the syntax of the tesselation to be more versatile and more
homogeneous with the syntax of other povray objects.

tesselate
{ OBJECT
  [accuracy INTEGER]
  [smooth]
  [inside_vector VECTOR]
  [distance FLOAT]

  OBJECT_MODIFIERS
}

  I reused old keywords in MegaPov so that I wouldn't have to create new
ones.
  The hardest keyword to find was for the bounding-box offset value. I thought
that 'distance' could be the best one for that.

  I still have to work a bit about the meaning of the accuracy value.
  Any suggestions?

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

On 14 Dec 2000 09:35:54 -0500, Warp wrote:
>  I reused old keywords in MegaPov so that I wouldn't have to create new
>ones.
>  The hardest keyword to find was for the bounding-box offset value. I thought
>that 'distance' could be the best one for that.

Isn't "offset" a keyword in MegaPOV anymore?

-- 
Ron Parker   http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
My opinions.  Mine.  Not anyone else's.

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
:   [accuracy INTEGER]

  I have decided to change that to:

    [accuracy VECTOR]

  This way the user can specify the accuracy in each axis.
  Of course specifying a single value will have the same effect as before
(because it's converted to a vector with the three components being that
value).

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

Ron Parker <ron### [at] povrayorg> wrote:
: Isn't "offset" a keyword in MegaPOV anymore?

  Oh... You are right. I changed it to "offset" :)

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

Sounds fine now. Just one question: What's "inside_vector"?

Post a reply to this message

Tony[B] <ben### [at] panamac-comnet> wrote:
: Sounds fine now. Just one question: What's "inside_vector"?

  See the section 5.3 (Solid Triangle mesh) of the MegaPov documentation.

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

What tessellation method did you use?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

In article <3a38ca62@news.povray.org>, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> 
wrote:

>   Would this alternative syntax be better?
> 
> tesselate
> { MyObject
>   accuracy INTEGER
>   [smooth]
>   [inside_vector VECTOR]
> }

I think so...for one thing, there currently aren't any functions that 
return objects, so you should probably stick to the object syntax for 
creating objects. Also, this syntax could be applied to the idea I was 
talking about earlier while keeping a fairly consistant syntax:
mesh {
    tesselate {OBJECT, etc...}
    tesselate {OBJECT2, etc...}
}

BTW, do you think there is a need for more insideness-testing methods? 
Not all meshes will work perfectly with a single test, sending 3 rays at 
right angles(or more rays in various directions) would work better in 
some cases. However, it would be slower, and in some cases the 1 ray 
method would be perfectly adequate or even more useful than the "more 
reliable" method. For example, if you have a sheet-like mesh that you 
want everything "under" to be "inside", something like a height field.

-- 
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/

<><

Post a reply to this message