On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:40:08 EST, "Bruno Cabasson"
<bru### [at] alcatelaleniaspacefr> wrote:

>OK. 24 more hours until midnight tomorrow (French time, end of working day
>in the US)

That's good of you.

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:

> Also there should be a definitive list of what's allowed and what is not.
>

My point of view: We don't have much time to collect suggestions about that
and decide precise constraints, unless the constraints are suggested by the
topic itself (eg "Black & White") or they are simple and 'overall' (eg
scenes are in a single POV-SDL file, without restrictions for the language
features).

Any idea welcome.

    Bruno

Post a reply to this message

Bruno Cabasson wrote:

> Any idea welcome.
>

A loose *intersection* of "Euclidian" solid objects
from traditional planar geometry and the objects of POV
syntax.
Box, Cone, Cylinder, Sphere, Torus, Plane

Either limit the scene to a subset of these
or
to a choice of ONE of these

Based on the docs:

*Solid Finite Primitives*
There are fourteen different
solid finite primitive shapes:

No  blob
*Yes box*
*Yes cone*
*Yes cylinder*
No height field
No Julia fractal
No lathe
No prism
*Yes sphere*
No spheresweep
No superellipsoid
No surface of revolution
No text object
*Yes torus*

*Finite Patch Primitives*
There are six totally thin, finite
objects which have no well-defined inside.

No bicubic patch
No disc
No smooth triangle
No triangle
No polygon
No mesh / mesh2

*Infinite Solid Primitives*
There are five polynomial primitive shapes
that are possibly infinite and do not
respond to automatic bounding.

*Yes plane*
No cubic
No poly
No quadric
No quartic

*Parametric Object*
Where the isosurface object uses implicit surface functions, F(x,y,z)=0, 
the parametric object is a set of equations for a surface expressed in 
the form of the parameters that locate points on the surface, x(u,v), 
y(u,v), z(u,v). Each pair of values for u and v gives a single point 
<x,y,z> in 3d space

No Parametric Object

*Isosurface Object*
No Isosurface object

Post a reply to this message

"Doctor John" <doc### [at] linuxmailorg> wrote:
> One more vote for TdeG's TINA CheP


 Yep, I think I'll go with TINA CheP too. And although Kyles' 'Optimism'
topic is really good, (there's a lot you can do with this subject), I think
there isn't enough time to do something worthwhile. IF the IRTC gets up and
running again soonish, I'd like to try this topic sometime.

  ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

Ideas:
    - alien flower
    - splash!
    - The Holly Grail
    - loss of control (maybe too general for our concern)
    - message in the bottle


    Bruno

Post a reply to this message

topic I suggest:

- IRTC in Hibernation
- Sleep of the IRTC
- Death of the IRTC?


Or just

- New IRTC

Just My 2 cent :)

Post a reply to this message

I'd just like to chime in and lend my support for the idea of a "primitive"
themed competition.  As many people have already mentioned, there isn't
much time left between now and the end of February, so a simple topic
might do nicely.

I am especially drawn to the idea of each artist being forced to choose and
work with just one primitive, and nothing else.

Such primitives being limited to:

* Box
* Sphere
* Cylinder
* Cone (which could be used to produce cylinders, I suppose :)
* Torus

As has also been mentioned, the restrictive nature of this theme could
produce some very interesting results as artists try to overcome this
restrictiveness through their own creativity.


I am curious though, who would we submit our images to in the increasingly
likely event that the IRTC is still not responding by the end of February?

Perhaps we could set up a Wikipedia page to use for the short term?


Cheers,

-Isaac K

Post a reply to this message

A mix of what has been said so far might be:

Topic: "This Is Not A Checkered Plane", using only basic POV-SDL primitives,
in a single scene file.

Discussion still open until tomorrow midnight, french time.

   Bruno

PS: It's over 0:30 now. See you in a few hours.

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message 
news:45b7bb8d$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>> Beauty
>
> Sure.

   Yes, it can be interpreted in many ways.


>
>
>> Your favourite tools
>
> Have always liked this one.

  I chose that because everyone has their favourite tools - and maybe fairly 
easy to do as a subject for the short time that we have.


>
>
>> Degradation
>
>
> Too close to home!

   I was thinking rust and stuff!  Heh...  :)


>
>> Something 2D in 3D
>
>
> Sounds hard

    Which is why I chose it. I've never even attempted it, so it would be a 
challenge for me (even using Wings), but it would have been interesting to 
see what came up.

  ~Steve~


>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message 
news:45b7bc8c@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>>  Floccinaucinihilipilification.
>>
>
>
> Timely, but too hard.

   LOL!  :o)

   I know that you know that I understood that.

     ~Steve~


>

Post a reply to this message