"Chris Huff" wrote:
> "Rune" wrote:
>
> > Generally I am against the whole concept of types in POV-Ray
> > features. They are unavoidable sometimes, but I think that they
> > should be avoided for the most part.
>
> In this case, they could be a very useful memory enhancement,
> since not all particles will use the same amount of memory.

And why would types be the best solution to this problem?

> My initial goal was to make it easier to use...
> I didn't want people to wonder "do I need this parameter for sand?"

And showing the user different useful combinations of settings would not
work? It has to be specific types with different preset behaviours?

> particles used for different purposes use a different set of
> features, and so a type of particle that only uses a subset
> of those won't waste memory on the unused parameters.

Make it possible to enable/disable the individual features. That's more
flexible than using types.

> I plan on having 4 types: Atmospheric, for doing smoke, etc.
> Liquid, for water, paint, etc. Solid, for sand, snow, and other
> stuff composed of solid "grains" that can pile up.
> Generic, that can do any combination of the above, but uses more
> memory. When you have thousands of particles, it can really make
> a difference.

Oh, so 3 of the types are just specific optimisations. That's sounds better.
But still, why can't the user just disable all features that he doesn't need
and save memory that way?

Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated January 28)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org

Post a reply to this message