Michael Andrews wrote:
> 
> Mind you, if the 'pigment_pattern' statement makes it into v3.5 it would
> probably be worth removing the convoluted extended syntax from 'slope'.
> You can do exactly the same effects with pigment_pattern and it is as
> easy to understand as the extended slope syntax.
> 
> I only tacked the extended syntax on to Hans Detlev-Fink's original
> slope concept because no-one had implemented anything like the
> pigment_pattern at that time. If we have pigment_pattern to do this (and
> many other clever effects) in v3.5 then the extended slope syntax is
> pointless and should be depreciated.
> 

There already was a discussion on that matter some time ago:

Subject: slope-dependent pattern
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 20:40:41
From: "Nathan Kopp" <Nat### [at] Koppcom>
Newsgroups: povray.unofficial.patches

I still think the extended syntax is worth keeping, but it would not be an
enormous problem if it is removed IMO.  I never made a speed comparison
between extended slope pattern and the average-pigment_pattern construct,
but it probably will be slower at least to some extend.  Since the pattern
is often used for texturing (isosurface) landscapes, speed might be quite
an important argument.

Christoph

-- 
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other 
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message