stm31415:
"Yeah, it isn't a binary, but it's there when I download."

Do you use any of povray textures in the include files?  No?  what are you
complaining about then?  Include files can be solemnly ignored if you don't
want them and want to build each scene anew from scratch using nothing but a
hex editor.

"There is a big difference in my mind between asking for a bunch of boxes
and asking for a room."

I never said that i would want, say, to simply do:
#include "places/interiors/kitchen/jvp.inc"
object { kitchen }

that is much worse than to simply render the .pov scene instead.  But it
would certainly be cool to have macros to create rooms and them populate
them with several objects common to certain locations, like kitchen or
restroom...

"Picasso had to learn to draw realistically before he was able to forget."

Include files can be solemnly ignored, i repeat.  If you're willing to learn
povray SDL, you can certainly do it.  I'm thinking of expanding the old pov
includes for people to quickly compose new scenes out of truly useful and
reusable parametrized object/texture creation macros.

"Included objects are like urinals. They're there, sure enough, but what
does it take to sign one and call it art?"

It's not art at all.  even in an exposition by some celebrity...

"It seems unlikely to me that anyone would use something as (and I say this
in a loving way) asinine as pov if they weren't at least slightly invested
in the technical aspects of creation."

Include files can be solemnly ignored, i repeat.

"Don't we often enough admire the code just as much as the image?"

I certainly do.  Specially the ones from Paul Bourke's Short Code Contest.
:)

"[Thought: can the code of a scene lead the reader through that scene in a
narrative manner, adding a temporal element to a static scene? SDL =
self-illustrating literature?]"

Yes.  It's not different actually from any other code, like programming
languages or musical notation.

"But that library is composed of objects which are less primitive."

As far as i understand, you're opposing the idea of a more modern library
because either you will not be able to learn povray SDL otherwise or
because such objects  won't cater to your taste, because they're to
specific and limited exactly for not being primitives.  Does is summarize
your points well enough?

So, let me state it for the last time:  include files can be solemnly
ignored.  Use SDL primitives and your own include files if you are feeling
creative.  Use predefined objects if you're feeling practical.

"With a Canon Digital Rebel(r) and a 4-in-1 Photoprinter the Mona Lisa could
have been done in under 30 seconds a print --- but somehow it just doesn't
seem the same to me ;)"

it isn't:  if it didn't exist, your camera and light would do no better than
having a pov scene of just a camera and light.  Some Joe Average using
povray for the first time rendering a scene with elements from Gilles
Tran's "Wet Bird" is the same as some Joe Average taking a shot from
Monalisa and photoshopping it.

"The POV-Ray community is a school of art, just like impressionism or dada.
Our manifesto is the set of bits that make up the latest distro. While that
inherently invites change, and we must embrace it as it comes, I do think
that part of the beauty that has been created comes from the challenge, the
intellectual pursuit of making a machine produce your vision. Ridding
ourselves of that inconvenience risks turning POV-Ray into so many
craft-store stencils."

Nice speach.  The Persistence of Vision name indeed hints at that.

But include files do not prevent that at all.  They are essentially there to
allow for a more industrial model than the handcraft model artists like so
much.  Handcraft artists will continue handcrafting scenes despite anything
we cram into povray include files.  It's my belief the main benefits from
such a facelift to povray includes would be the architectural types into
CAD stuff...

"Centralize it and when I need a duck or (and?) a bowl of spaghetti, I'll
come and get it."

I think it was a complete waste of time to bring this topic up.  It is clear
that as it is, povray catters mostly to people who enjoy handcrafting scenes
from scratch.  Is it because it comes so bare and naked?  The way i thought,
getting more useful stuff into povray include files would also make it more
attractive to people who want to reuse and compose rather than create.  The
way i see it, a more robust povray include library would only make it
stronger, without really coming in the way of handcrafters.

Chris, i'll work on this to get a more concrete example for people to
discuss, since most are arguing about a "standard" which really doesn't
exist.  Still, i'm not sure such a major facelift would be made just in
time for 3.7.  Perhaps 4.0? :)

Post a reply to this message