Remco de Korte wrote:
> 
> Johannes Hubert wrote:
> >
> > Ken wrote in message <36ABF76A.3C524C31@pacbell.net>...
> > [snip]
> > >Others will start with a modeling program
> > >and slowly gravitate away from it when they realize there are
> > >features in pov that no modeler supports and are forced to work
> > >with text only.
> > [snip]
> >
> > And then there are others (very comfortable with programming and scripting
> > in general) who never "gravitate away" from modelers, simply prefering their
> > ease of use and instant visual feedback over a script-language, and instead
> > using their programming skills for writing tools and plug-ins for stuff not
> > possible in their modeler of choice. You know, about a year ago I planned an
> > image that would involve many trees, which I had no idea how to build in
> > Moray, so I set out to write a tool to help me with that - alas, the tool is
> > there, but the image is still only a figment of my imagination... ;-)
> >
> > Johannes.
> 
> Yep, I've tried several modellers but can't find the patience to get familiar
> with any of them, while I do have the patience to type out the code (the
> keyboard-cowboy-syndrome). It's the same with HTML. Odd, actually...
> 
> Remcodd

Agree with you here.... I once learned AutoCad, and was very satisfied with the work I
could produce, even in 3D. Back then, I had no idea about POv, and when I came to POV,
I
started to code it by hand, found it far easier than my last projects before that(A
vesa
3D lib in pascal) and stuck with it. I've tried several modellers(Calimax, Moray,
PovLab,
sPatch) and I'm not satisfied with any of them, mostly because I haven't got enough
patience with a modeller to come to the same stage I am in text base, so I see no gain
in
using them.

//Spider

Post a reply to this message