In article <3C41628F.7B4132C1@avalon-net.co.il>,
 Eugene Arenhaus <eug### [at] avalon-netcoil> wrote:

> Of that I am well aware. It was merely provided as food for thought. 
> 
> I am more than content with waiting. :)

Oops, looks like I forgot to include this link:
http://www.povray.org/3.5-status.html

"Third, our most recent musings about POV-Ray 4 lean towards a major 
reworking of the POV Scene Description Language. This means that POV 4 
may not be fully backwards compatible with old scenes. If that is the 
case, we will plan to provide an official conversion utility that will 
convert old scenes into the new syntax, or provide some other means of 
importing old scenes."


> And why not? It does produce raster output, which can be used as texture
> UV map if we render it then save the image and use it in another scene,
> n'est pas? So why not let it be used as texture UV map without all that
> hassle?

Doing that "on the fly" without rendering the image from the camera is a 
little more difficult...but I'm working on a patch that does exactly 
that.


> Must have been my personal blunders, then... in my experience with 3.1,
> I was not successful with making precisely those three circles that
> would either protrude visibly from the cylinder as other cylinders, or
> else show rendering artifacts - but not look like they were "painted on
> surface".

Well, if the surfaces are coincident, POV won't be able to decide which 
one to use, but you can use an offset that won't be visible at any 
reasonable resolution. I've never liked this workaround though...that's 
why I wrote the object pattern.


> Can I make a macro that would calculate a macro that I would pass it in
> a parameter?

Not currently. But this has little to do with anything being 
"precalculated", POV just assumes you want the result of a macro call 
instead of the macro identifier, similar problems exist with splines and 
functions. It should be possible to implement with a little parser work.


> I would say that scalar is merely a 1-dimensional vector.

Well, not in the mathematical sense, but probably so practically. Are 
you suggesting some way of specifying the number of components of a 
vector?


> Could you please tell when you post it?

I posted it a couple days ago...the discussion has moved to 
povray.general though.

-- 
 -- 
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>

Post a reply to this message