andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Bruno Cabasson wrote:
> > Concerning the animation problem, I see things as follows:
> >
> > Solution 1:
> > -----------
> > The nth frame I(n) of an animation is a function of time only. Its
> > description depends on the sole time parameter. Then you can conceptually
> > write:
> >
> > I(n) = F(tn), with F being the function that describes the scene at time tn.
> >
> > This is POV's point of view, through the 'clock' variable and reparsing the
> > whole scene (except radiosity and photon maps if so specified).
> >
> > This solution requires only the description of the F(t) function.
> >
> > Solution 2:
> > -----------
> > The nth frame I(n) is made by delta wrt first frame. Its description relies
> > on the description of first frame at t0 and a delta function that depends
> > on the time parameter. Then you can conceptually write:
> >
> > I(n) = I(0) + D(tn), with D being the function that describes the variation
> > of the scene between tn and t0.
> >
> > This solution requires the decription of I(0) and the D(t) function.
> >
> > Solution 3:
> > -----------
> > The nth frame I(n) is made by delta wrt previous frame. Its description
> > relies on that of the previous frame I(n-1) and a delta function that
> > depends on the two instants tn and tn-1. Then you can conceptually write:
> >
> > I(n) = G(I(n-1)) = I(n) + d(tn, tn-1), with d being the function that
> > describes the variation of the scene between tn and tn-1.
> >
> > This solution requires the description of I(0) and d(t1, t2) function.
> >
> >
> > Each of these solution is a different approach with pros and cons and
> > implies related features and syntax.
> >
> > Concerning POV4, which of these is preferable?
> >
> none or all

What do you mean exactly? I don't get your point ...

POV has currently solution 1. Solution 2 appears in modelers by attaching
timelines to objects (is it be what we want for POV4?). What I have
understood in the discussion is that it would be preferable to have
something else than reparsing the scene. I made this quick analysis that
yields to 3 solutions. I think a unique solution must be chosen (among the
above 3 or others, please suggest ...). How could several approaches
co-exist without complicating the langage?

I believe that the new syntax must be close to the current, with somme OO
aspects (modules, inheritance, dot operator etc ...), with some higher
level object types (I put it as it comes):

cloudscape, vegetation, human and non human characters, clothing, particle
system, etc ... to be defined ... Please suggest!

And with new features:

sub-surface scattering, shader language (basic, medium, advanced? what would
it need and look like?), mesh-editing features (basic, medium, advanced?),
IK for characters, user-friendly math/geom programming tools (thanks to
gurus), etc ...

If we can achieve to define a language that keeps POV's SDL spirit, with the
nice new features you all talk about, it could be a high level
programming/scripting language for scene designers, as well as an interface
language for 3rd party tools.

POV's new GUI would be a shipped-with and integrated, with handy features,
for example:

text-editing (of course), basic/medium/advanced pre-visualization of shapes,
objects, textures etc ..., animation handling and previsualization,
spline/path editor, color editor, basic/medium mesh editor, proess control
.... etc ...


Bruno

Post a reply to this message