"Mr" <nomail@nomail> wrote:

>
> Yes, I understand, and this time I totally agree with you. that is why I love
> POV-Ray: maturity.
>
> Blender is relatively young. its community sometimes suffered from what we call
> "jeunisme" in french, the tendancy to believe that what is new is necessarily
> better. that's why most blenderheads rushed to Mitsuba, Luxrender, Yafaray,
> Kerkythea, Thea, Octane, Aqsis...  etc, without ever considering to help
> modernize and integrate POV-Ray, simply because "it is old". LuxRender has had
> up to 16 enthusiast developers, Cycles is driven almost full time by one of the
> most professional, skilled an experienced developers available.
> However four/five years or more after their creations, POV-Ray still offers some
> functionality unavailable to them (Continue Trace) and has caught up with some
> of its new candies (Real Time stochastic Rendering) to be fair, POV-Ray still
> misses some features but these give no other difference in the final result than
> rendering time (this could be debatable, for the way some features such as
> spectral rendering would leverage more ressources and help overcome some POV-Ray
> "crashing points", do show if you try the most extreme refractive caustics
> scenes in POV-Ray and compare them with LuxRender results at the time of writing
> this)
>
> Because some of the Blender friendly external renderers and their exporters'
> development kept drying out. The solution chosen was to nest the development of
> the rendering engine inside the Blender Foundation to harvest all of the
> community energy and feedback. This DID work, and Cycles development has been
> blazingly fast and did not die. We could consider that with the manpower used in
> all of these renderers povray 4 would already be there, but it would be like
> considering you could put a town in a bottle if only every house was smaller.
>
> Probably you are working in an area of blender (the nodes) that is less stable
> than the rest now, the basic material and render API used to change often too
> but has now stabilized. Here again, being in official addon repository has
> helped, because developers helping to propagate their api changes themselves
> made them hold their horses. If you really want to keep a separate branch, then
> probably you will have more luck with developing other operators while you wait
> for this stabilisation, such as POV-Ray importers, and tools.

Thanks for understanding and explanation!

> For instance we
> could use a system of  locked primitives without edit mode and just pov
> parameters, if possible: creating a cube would create a mesh cube, torus the
> same, but the idea would be that at no point you could change the topology, only
> the size, radius, etc. these would be sexy to the blender community because no
> other renderer offers perfectly smooth shapes, except Aqsis and there is to my
> knowledge no Blender interface well taylored specifically for them.

You could see that the early version of my exporter had such opportunity:
object write as... (supertorus, superellipsoid, sphere, cone)
I kept source code and I will transfer it to the new version.
In the Blender we create mesh simulation, but we broadcast only a matrix, and we
represent object as povray shape

Post a reply to this message