"Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message 
news:497bc2e8@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>> "Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote
>>>
>>> Well, I'd say the less the author had to rely on *other tools* the more
>>> appropriate for POV-Ray HOF...
>>
>>    Yes, but times have moved on now...
>>
>>     Perhaps the thing to do is split it.
>>
>>     o- PoV only HOF. (Total CSG and render).
>>
>>     o- PoV/other/HOF. (Use of other tool and render).
>
> I didn't say other tools shouldn't be used at all. But somebody who 
> created
> a texture in a graphic program, a mesh in a 3D modeller, and put the model
> with the texture as an image_map in a povray scene, doesn't seem worth
> putting in povray HOF, even if with only those two elements the image 
> looks
> awesome.
>

     The problem is that a lot of users (like myself) are limited to what 
they can do with POV. Sure, I can probably create a neat scene in pure SDL 
with the use of primitives and/or others, but I sure couldn't complete a 
great landscape scene with all the 'needed' objects that go with it. Some 
can do that, and some simply cannot. So I think there has to be some degree 
of fairness across the board when it comes to the HOF and should really 
focus on the 'end goal' - the final render.

   I think the HOF is very important, and if it was me, I would have all of 
those proposals added, and more.

    ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message