clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 22.08.2016 um 13:11 schrieb Mr:
>
> > For the exporter from Blender to POV it is possible to have a mesh object from
> > which the user will have deleted all vertices, this user may not be willing to
> > add anthing to the scene, but we have to assume that he does it on purpose, and
> > would indeed want to keep track of the transformations of some point, BUT he
> > uses an interface and doesn't even want to know what a vector or a matrix is.
> > Also, the transformations would have to happen through all the same operators as
> > the standard geometry exported. because creating a particular case may have
> > inconsistant results.
>
> A vector won't fit your purpose, since you need different code to
> transform it.
>
> Given that the described use case doesn't leave a vertex to track, the
> most fitting analogon would probably be an empty union.
>
> > Would a declared vector be able to pass through all the transforms a mesh2
> > object can ever go through? if so I was wrong and should use a vector, but if I
> > HAVE to add a vtransform or anything that all standard geometry can't go
> > through, then I can't use it, because it's not a mesh... but it's a mesh. :-)
>
> Maybe what we should do is change the behaviour of the parser when it
> encounters a mesh2, to issue "possible parse error" warnings instead of
> outright errors when it encounters an empty list of faces or empty list
> of indices.

Don't bother, it's already fine with zerosphere, and also there are other non
geometrical objects called empties which wouldn't get exported as meshes, so I
used also zerosphere, counting on spheres to be the most tested and optimized
pov  objects :-)  I'm very happy with the direction pov/uberpov/hgpov, etc is
evolving! thanks youz ! :-)

Post a reply to this message