>But for this, we have to provide strict rules concerning the size of the
>detail images: experience shows that not giving precise rules always means
>big trouble, so we would have ended up making them anyway.

Example: in my image, there's a car i've modelled. I've put much details in
it.
1- the car takes a big part of the image: there's nothing more to show,
there's no more details, you won't see more things if i give you a detailed
image, but if i must provide one, i'll just provide an near-empty image.
2-the car in very small in the whole image: if i want to provide the 1/25th
of the image, i'll have to show the things that aren't needed to be shown
around the car. But I want to show you the car, not the things around that
will waste cpu time. In that case i'll have to make a BIG picture to show
its details, and so some rendering time will be wasted.
Because it's a long and hard work, just by asking at least two detailed
images, we'll show where we have gone into details, we don't need rules to
show what we can do. And the judges don't need a specifically sized view to
see where the artist has gone into details.
I can't see what you get from the rules on these detailed views. What do you
loose if i give a 1/40th view instead of a 1/10th? Can't i just show my
work?
Maybe you don't have to put precise rules, but only the aim of it, why you
need theses.

>Personally I still don't think that the detail rules are so complicated:
>it's just a simple ratio, and nothing that could possibly scare an
>experienced POV-Ray user who's playing with complex CSG, isosurfaces
> and the like!

Well, just try one thing: make an image where a sphere takes 80% of the
image and show me a detailed view according to these rules. Now do the same
thing with a tiny sphere that takes 2% of the picture. Pretty hard to do,
no?

> But it's true that some people found them confusing, and
> indeed, if people have a better way to express them, please do so.

No rules at all! yeah! :))

>> And why can't the entries be modified once submitted? I may want to submit
>> it once to be sure to participate, and to modify it as long as i still
>> have time.
>I'm not sure of what you mean by "to be sure to participate". Participation
>is defined by the registration.

"to have one entry"
Example: I submit my image, and then i'm sure that that even if i don't
modify it, even if i fell sick, the judges will see it, but i still can
easily modify it if i want, anytime. Instead, here, you have to: 1-
complete it 2- submit it 3- no 3, you can't modify, you just delete it and
restart the process (i haven't spent much time on that, though).

>No, it's just that all of us are a little spoiled by the very relaxed rules
>of the IRTC, and by the fact that we don't have experienced 3D pros
> walking among us. Just have a look at other 3D competitions or sites
> like Raph.com to see what I mean. As I said, the bar has been raised
> very high these days, and I mean *** high ***. See for instance:
>http://cgnetworks.com/challenge/machineflesh/

In those competitions, there are pros who compete to get a name in order to
find a job...
And most of povray community is made of hobbyists.
And, as it's written on the homepage of povcomp, it's not professionnaly
used for its artistic side.

>we want to give more POV-Ray users the opportunity to create
> truly exceptional work.

This sentence has to be on the homepage of povcomp!

selsek