Hi, (nice forest macro, by the way..it looks great)

I intend no offense to the TC-RTC, and wish to avoid tertiary debate, but I 
do feel the need to state you made a very good case for the re-animation of 
the IRTC:

>People are just pretending that the TC-RTC doesn't exist.

That is a big problem. If people will not use something for any number of 
reasons it should/must be replaced.

I didn't even know the TC-RTC existed, its bookmarked now, but the above 
point is still very valid.

Additionally:

>What problem are we trying to address that the TC-RTC does not? You can 
>certainly argue that the TC-RTC is a step backwards from the IRTC in some 
>ways

There are many RTCs out there, I guess its just a matter of exposure, niche 
and user preference.
Perhaps the TC-RTC is a step back, I don't know. I'll trust you there.

In the end, since we *can* ressurect the IRTC with improvements, and people 
*would* use it and *do* want it back ....I say, why not?
:-D

However I guess you could put a poll on the povray and/or irtc homepage.

Ian

"William Tracy" <wtr### [at] calpolyedu> wrote in message 
news:47aff755$1@news.povray.org...
> [GDS|Entropy] wrote:
>> So whats next? :-)
>
> If I may...
>
> What problem are we trying to address that the TC-RTC does not? You can 
> certainly argue that the TC-RTC is a step backwards from the IRTC in some 
> ways--but I don't see anyone arguing that. People are just pretending that 
> the TC-RTC doesn't exist.
>
> Is the problem that the TC-RTC has a name that starts with TC instead of 
> I?
>
> -- 
> William Tracy
> afi### [at] gmailcom -- wtr### [at] calpolyedu
>
> There are no problems which cannot be solved by judicious use of high 
> explosives.
>    -- British commando, circa WWII

Post a reply to this message