"Nathan Kopp" <Nat### [at] Koppcom> wrote in message
news:3a26f8ac$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Scott Hill" <sco### [at] innocentcom> wrote...
> >     Sure, but, because the sphere is defined as having the foo pigment,
> does
> > it not make sense that the animation on the pigment should get blurred
> along
> > with the motion of the sphere ?
>
> The issue here is the implementation...
>
> Granted, this may not be the most intuitive, but I had a limited amount of
> time to add the feature...

    Sorry, I really didn't mean to attack the current implementation - I can
understand why it is the way it is - and, though I do find features of it
annoying, I can work round them. However, people were saying "use MegaPov's
motion_blur" without any caveats - I knew that MegaPov's implementation had
limitations, so felt they needed airing.

> ...However, I will not try that until the re-write for POV 4 gets
> started.  The current code was not written with this feature in mind.
>

    I thought an improved implementation might be on the cards at some
point - which was why I went on to give my opinion of what is wrong with
MegaPOVs implementation - as a programmer myself, I feel that such public
and open scrutinization and discussion of an applications feature set,
limitations and bugs can only benefit future developments of the
application - after all who's in a better position to assess software than
the users of the said software ?

--
Scott Hill.
Software Engineer.
E-Mail        : sco### [at] innocentcom
PGP Key       : http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371
Pandora's Box : http://www.pandora-software.com

*Everything in this message/post is purely IMHO and no-one-else's*

Post a reply to this message