Jeremy M. Praay <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote:
>  To me, that means that 
> despite any comments to the contrary, it appears that the judges did not 
> apply a CSG-centric bias to any appreciable degree.

  What I don't understand is why some people seem to have got a fanatic
obsession about judges requiring CSG-only entries based on comments
which give negative feedback on using third-party models excessively.
No amount of explanation seems to convince them otherwise.

  It looks like they can think only in binary: Either you accept
scenes modelled 100% in a third-party program, or else you only
accept scenes made 100% in POV-Ray. There's no middle ground and
if anyone (specially a judge) denies that he is a liar.

  I don't understand what is so freaking hard to understand in the
concept that it's perfectly ok to use third-party models but not to
model your entire image with them (because that was really not what
this competition was about).
  I have been trying to say this in a multitude of ways, for no avail.
The only response I get is that it's bullshit, thus effectively calling
me a liar.

> In an impossible to achieve hypothetical situation, if there were 3 
> identical images where one consisted completely of 3rd party models 
> (purchased or free), one consisted of models the author created using a 
> modeller, and one consisted only of CSG (nothing external to POV-Ray), 
> should the latter not score highest in competition to show the full 
> potential of POV-Ray?

  A fourth entry using imported models and other POV-Ray primitives in
a creative and skillful way would have probably be the strongest
candidate. Curious that you didn't give this as an option at all.

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -