 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Christoph Hormann" wrote:
> > * vtransform don't give access to the different parts of the
transformation
> > (which I named X, Y, Z and P), and thus the correct weighted average
cannot
> > easily be performed. If you insist that it can be done, please provide a
> > macro that takes a weighted average of any number of transforms.
>
> I don't see a reason why it's more difficult to do this in
> Pov SDL than in c code. Implementing your idea directly in
> Povray does require the same calculations.
Internally POV-Ray has access to the different parts of the transformation
matrix (X,Y,Z,P), while this can't be accessed directly from the SDL. An
average of transformations can only be taken if those parts are known.
But anyway, I've just remembered the ultimate argument why it can't be done
in SDL, at lest not for smooth meshes:
In order to transform a normal, one has to know the corresponding vertex.
However, in mesh2 each normal can be assigned to several vertices. Thus it
is impossible to transform the normals of mesh2 in the SDL.
> I do not say a function like you suggested is nonsense,
> but before writing a patch for that it would be useful
> to try it in Pov SDL and see how it works.
I guess it would be possible for a low-resolution non-smooth mesh, where
each vertex is assigned to one transformation only, not an average.
I'll do some experiments.
Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated June 26)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Webring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
in news:3bb70b9a@news.povray.org Rune wrote:
> But anyway, I've just remembered the ultimate argument why it can't
> be done in SDL, at lest not for smooth meshes:
>
> In order to transform a normal, one has to know the corresponding
> vertex. However, in mesh2 each normal can be assigned to several
> vertices. Thus it is impossible to transform the normals of mesh2
> in the SDL.
>
Yes, they can be assigned to several vertices, but they don't have to
be! Nothing stops you from writing a mesh that specifies a normal per
vertex in the normal_vectors / normal_indices. Also it shouldn't
be too difficult to 'un-optimise' a given mesh, using a script.
Ingo
--
Photography: http://members.home.nl/ingoogni/
Pov-Ray : http://members.home.nl/seed7/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"ingo" wrote:
> Yes, they can be assigned to several vertices, but they
> don't have to be! Nothing stops you from writing a mesh
> that specifies a normal per vertex
Ok, but that's rather inefficient.
I think there's plenty of good reasons to implement the feature I've
proposed.
Is there anybody besides me who thinks it would be a good idea?
Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated June 26)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Webring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune wrote:
> I think there's plenty of good reasons to implement the feature I've
> proposed.
>
> Is there anybody besides me who thinks it would be a good idea?
Actually I don't think it is a good idea. I haveno use for it. This is
one of those features that would benefit only a handful of people and
99.9% of the other users would never use it. The POV-Team can't even
come up with a simple spline function that satisfies you and now you
want something 20 times more difficult to implement. I don't see it
happening.
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
in news:3bb719c3@news.povray.org Rune wrote:
> Ok, but that's rather inefficient.
Don't think so, it doesn't matter much wether you have a mesh with 10
normals in the normal_vertices and a normal_indices list with 10.000
entries, or 10.000 normals, most identical, in the normal_vertices and
no need for a normal_indices list. The first one may be a bit smaller
in size, the second one may parse a bit faster (untested).
> I think there's plenty of good reasons to implement the feature I've
> proposed.
> Is there anybody besides me who thinks it would be a good idea?
I think it is too specific for a direct POV-Ray implementation, but it
is very interesting as macro implementation. The latter for two
reasons, first, we'll have a nice animation possibility.
Second, in writing the macros you'll probably run into some problems
with array manipulation. The speed of looping through arrays. There is
no direct way to search in the content of an array. There is no way you
can 'directly' manipulate all of the content of an array, say apply a
function to each vector in it. Now if you can define this kind of
problems accurately and can convince the Team that these should be
possible to do from inside POV, without the need of macros, there would
be a 'bigger gain' than by implementing what you proposed.
Ingo
--
Photography: http://members.home.nl/ingoogni/
Pov-Ray : http://members.home.nl/seed7/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ken" wrote:
> Rune wrote:
> > I think there's plenty of good reasons to
> > implement the feature I've proposed.
> >
> > Is there anybody besides me who thinks it would be a good idea?
>
> Actually I don't think it is a good idea. I haveno use for it.
I'm sure you don't. I haven't seen many animations from you. I haven't seen
very much POV-Ray work from you at all... ;)
But almost all serious computer animation includes character animation and
that's currently the weakness of POV-Ray. If it would be possible to animate
poser characters and the like rather easily from within POV-Ray it could
really revolutionize POV-Ray animation I think.
> This is one of those features that would benefit only a handful
> of people and 99.9% of the other users would never use it.
I don't think so. What makes you think that?
> The POV-Team can't even come up with a simple spline function
> that satisfies you and now you want something 20 times more
> difficult to implement. I don't see it happening.
FYI this group is povray.unofficial.patches
Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated June 26)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Webring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune wrote:
>
> But almost all serious computer animation includes character animation and
> that's currently the weakness of POV-Ray. If it would be possible to animate
> poser characters and the like rather easily from within POV-Ray it could
> really revolutionize POV-Ray animation I think.
>
But Povray is certainly not a character animator and not a modeller. What
you suggest is a specialized capability for manipulating mesh data. It
has of course advantages to implement this in Povray - take the cloth
simulation patch as an example for this - but the purpose is quite special
so it probably won't become part of a general Povray version.
On the other hand if some new general 'hooks' are required for efficiently
implementing it in SDL (like 'weighting transforms') i see no problem of
those becoming part of a future (megapov) version.
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmx de>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune wrote:
>
> But almost all serious computer animation includes character animation and
> that's currently the weakness of POV-Ray. If it would be possible to animate
> poser characters and the like rather easily from within POV-Ray it could
> really revolutionize POV-Ray animation I think.
All the serious computer animations have been done with a system that has a
GUI. Very few people can do Toy Story by writing "...<34,234.23,2343>} blah{
1231,2132,<234,2334,853>..."
When there is GUI to back it up then it's a good idea.
_____________
Kari Kivisalo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I proposed something like this in my wish-list for 4.0, but I'm afraid that
it will remain a wish with the attitude most POVers have about keeping
modeller and renderer separate, something which I don't really mind
combining. The only way to really get a receptive audience for a patch is to
just sit down and program it yourself. If they like it, they will come.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tony[B]" wrote:
>
> ...with the attitude most POVers have about keeping modeller and renderer
> separate, something which I don't really mind combining.
Heretic!
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
