Op 10/08/2020 om 13:19 schreef Bald Eagle:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> but
>> over the years much of the information is somehow lost or forgotten and
>> I have noted several times that the same wheel is being invented over
>> and over again.
> 
> Right.  I've noted that as well, and there are certainly more scene and include
> files in the archives than I know what to do with.
> 

Agreed.

>> most of what I do is common-sense, straightforward, coding. I
>> am sure however, that there could be a demand for it.
> 
> Most often I see the people with the most talent underappreciate and undervalue
> themselves.  It's also often not "what" you do, but how you do it.  And most
> often, if you have the initiative and stamina to do it at all.
> 

Agreed.

>> I am not sure in
>> what form this should be done and if this should be incorporated into
>> the web site
> 
> I've had write science articles, and have read a lot of patents --- usually one
> starts out with a brief introduction (these are the basics of the heightfield)
> does a short review of notable prior art (this can be a few sentences with
> references/links, and then I would imagine in the present context, one might lay
> out the stepwise development of a scene that uses a hf as terrain, how it gets
> generated, how it gets modified and tweaked, and some of the tricks for
> texturing it.
> Then there may be a list of references and links that are of related interest or
> further reading on the specific subject.
> 

I too have writing experience. I was musing about whether the 
contributions should be 'formal' or 'informal' (layout of text, code, 
images). I strongly feel it should be 'informal' as that would give the 
contributor the most freedom and - certainly - stimulation to present 
something to the community. At least, a low-key editing party would be 
advisable though, just to keep things within their proper limits. :-)

> I would also say that articles reviewing past _unsolved_ issue may be of
> interest as well - as this is instructive about how people approach the same
> problem in many different ways, goes into the specifics of what has been tried,
> why it doesn't work or how it falls short of the desired result, and sets out a
> list of ideas that may have been pondered but not yet tried.
> That way if someone has an interest in a similar subject, they will already know
> that it doesn't work, and what the issues are in attempting to get it to.  It
> also puts ideas and problem solving strategies out there for people to learn
> from and acts as a seed for brainstorming and inspiration for derivative works.
> (More clever readers may get frustrated by the failed attempt and be spurred to
> show how it CAN be done   :D )

Agreed.

> 
> Lastly, and this is mostly here for completeness, would be articles that deal
> with what _can't_ be done - and why.  This may help someone just starting a
> scene from unproductively pursuing a doomed strategy.  It's also a good place to
> discuss what scene coders probably do best - fake it with a workaround that's
> good enough to fool the eye from the chosen perspective.  Many people may be
> tempted to model the exact geometry of something, or a _whole_ something, when
> simply a close approximation and some clever texturing with normals will do the
> trick.   Billboarding.  Etc.
> 

My thoughts entirely.

> Check THIS out  :O
> https://twitter.com/QTAnon1/status/1288270534493581314
> 

Clever! :-)

> 
> 
> Text / html in the usual sort of post would be good, but also maybe exporting it
> to a PDF so it can be individually downloaded and archived might be a good idea
> as well.  It would also look pretty professional, and outside sites could link
> to the PDF thus generating traffic to - HERE.
> 

PDF would be most excellent indeed. It is the medium I most often use to 
produce and/or archive texts myself.

> 
> There should probably be a poll soliciting what actual users would like to see
> covered (and why), as well as a list of people they might like/hope to see
> invited articles by.   (It's early and this is by no means an inclusive list)
> Paul Bourke, Inigo Quilez, Tor Olav Kristensen, Jaime Vives Piqueres, Paul
> Nylander, Robert McGregor, Ive, Norbert Kern, Gilles Tran, Christoph Hormann,
> Samuel Benge ... and others which I may not even be aware of.
>

Absolutely. These people, and more, are essential. Some have moved on 
though, but their sites are often still available.

I believe that sites essential to the community, like those from 
Lohmueller, Mike Williams, Gilles Tran, Christoph Hormann, Jaime Vives 
Piqueres, etc, etc, should be showcased more proeminently on the POV-Ray 
website.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message