"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:

> updating and changing things, we should make a clean break, and even start
> renaming some of the macros as well.
> [...]I think that now is a good time to set the tone for how things will be
structured,[...]
> It's a lot to slog through, but I think that hammering out a single include file
that illustrates a lot of the ideolo
gy and format we might want would be a great way to guide work on successive efforts.

Very true that more explicit names are required.
And +1 vote for a proof of concept macro set, so pragmatic use will better
reorient reflection. Something that I believe would weight in the positive
changes balance is that some acclaimed macro developers could start to value
their work as more being part of POV-Ray core or at least potentially, that's
why I asked about some specific macros such as Lightsys (but correct me if
POV-Ray trunk already features a better alternative that I'm not aware of): that
example is a collective work and one that appears to be time standing-ly
recognized, respected, and used actually much more than most of the "official"
macros delivered with POV-Ray package. In the same way when I look at what
asset/sample is available for any kind of metal presets, If I browse through the
standard includes and compare them with CousinRicky's I will definitely consider
the standard one outdated legacy for its result (maybe it just needs better
default settings but still), yet on the other hand, having to go to through some
"download>unzip>skim-through-newsgroups-for-doc" procedures for CR's macro makes
one (probably mistakingly) believe that this macro has been judged sub-standard
by the main team, so using it seems more risky /costly / not worthy /whatever...

All this makes it appear like POV is somewhat limited to phong spheres would you
choose to get more "seriously" into it.

Of course I do not pretend to speak for macro authors, but as a user, so one
could argue that these authors might not want their macros included ? Then the
question behind would rather be, after many decades, maybe it's time some
alternatives were made to  be actually delivered along with pov as part of the
package. (dropping off less used ones if file size is the matter)

Am I missing something or does this naive opinion actually make sense?

Post a reply to this message