|
 |
In article <38c3dad0$1@news.povray.org>, "David Curtis"
<spa### [at] junkmail com> wrote:
> What I'd really like to see is a NURBS primitive in POV. Anybody else?
> There seems to be a lot of resistance to the idea, but I don't
> understand why.
I think you misunderstand things. There isn't resistance to the idea of
adding a NURBS primitive to POV, just disinterest in going through the
work of coding and designing for a feature which is unuseable without a
modeller and which most people don't feel they need, and which many see
as being a modeller feature and not a renderer feature.
If you write a patch which adds a NURBS primitive, it will probably get
put into MegaPOV as soon as possible, but there won't be any people
using it until someone writes either a converter or a modeller which can
export to it. And until there are those tools, it almost definitely
won't get in the official version.(unless you write it so it can be
edited by hand)
> So old-schoolers with their hand-written code won't have any use for
> it, but who cares? If they don't want it they don't have to use it.
You imply that the people who hand code are stuck at a lower level and
are "behind the times". This simply isn't true. Most of the patch
writers are hand coders. Just testing the thing would be difficult
without any hand-editable test data.
Since there are already meshes and bezier patches, the only real reason
to add a NURBS primative would be adaptive subdivision. I think there
would be more interest in adding subdivision capabilities to meshes than
to adding a NURBS object.
> I'm not asking anybody to program the code for the primitive, I'll do
> it myself.
Then go ahead, nobody said anything about not adding an existing patch.
Unwillingness to volunteer time and energy to add a feature one sees as
useless to oneself and the majority of users does not equal resistance
to the idea of adding the feature.
--
Chris Huff
e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
