Ron Parker wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 31 Aug 1999 03:12:35 -0700, Ken wrote:
> 
> >Despite the comments from the other two skeptics in this thread I like the
> >idea of these two new patterns.
> 
> As you all should know by now, I love custom patches.  I also understand
> why one would implement a new pattern as a patch instead of as a macro,
> because it will invariably render more quickly.  But when you do that,
> you sacrifice portability you didn't have to sacrifice in the name of a
> relatively small increase in speed.

Why should portability be sacrificed if it is written in the same language
at the core program is ? I could see it an issue if it was written for the
Mac or one of the other hard to port to systems like UNIX's but for a simple
C language patch it should be no problem. ( I am guilty of not verifying
that this particular patch was written in C but bear in mind your comment
sounded like a blanket statement).

Regardless the fact the you and Warp, both advanced users, can figure out
a somewhat complicated method of rendering this pattern, does not make
it intuitively obvious to others and I doubt less than 10% of all Pov
users could do it themselves. Patches are for more than mere convenience
of parsing speed and memory effeciency.
 
> By the way, Warp, the squares could also be done with a repeat warp,
> which would eliminate the problem that happens with the gradient version
> near zero.

Yeah warp listen to papa :)

-- 
Ken Tyler

See my 850+ Povray and 3D Rendering and Raytracing Links at:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html

Post a reply to this message