yesbird wrote:
> On 09/09/2025 02:32, Bald Eagle wrote:
> > *** TRIGGER WARNING ***
> > ...

> use this converter(s) and how many conversions will they perform ?
[snip]
>I would like to ask the community: do we really need it ?

I would answer YES, for several reasons:

First and foremost, POV-ray is a great raytracing RENDERER. As B.E. mentioned,
there are so MANY STL models out there, that could be beautifully rendered by us
as-is (even if the mesh conversion retained only the un-smoothed
flat-faceted-triangles); or as part of a CSG construction (with the addition of
an inside vector to the converted mesh).

And a favorite technique of my own is to turn an object (even a mesh) into an
object pattern, then into a function, and to use that to create an isosurface
(although this has some limitations)-- but which can then be altered with
interesting distortions like warp{turbulence...}, fnoise_3D, etc.-- a kind of
shape-alteration that cannot be done any other way. Some STL models I've seen
would be great for that.

It's probably true that the majority of available STL models are in binary form
rather than as ascii files; but Kurtz found an online binary-to-ascii conversion
process, and his mesh 'crate' result is excellent. So that's not a bottleneck.

As to whether or not there are a limited number of us who would benefit from
such a converter, I would argue that there are plenty of *existing* features in
POV-ray that have historically been used by only a few people (including me!)--
but that does not negate their importance or usefulness; they are there IF we
need them. (Personally, I still feel that I have only 'scratched the surface' of
what POV-ray is capable of, with its many features and include files, and even
with its CSG modeling capabilities.)

To be able to use and render STL models would be a great addition to all of the
other features...and might even open up POV-ray to people who might otherwise be
hesitant to learn its SDL.

Post a reply to this message