 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bruno Cabasson" <bru### [at] alcatelaleniaspace fr> wrote:
>
> ...I suggested only one sdl file for POVers and one "MODEL" for
> modelers...........
you mean by a one "model". What is the alternative?
I understand a minimalistic approach is being discussed, one kind of
primitive or primitives only etc. and I support this idea so far.
I just need a little bit more clarification on how to implement this "one
allowed to make the floor too? Or is this a one scene only approach? Not
allowed to import element from other files?
Does somebody have a clear idea about this?
Hildur
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 12:32:20 EST, "Bruno Cabasson"
<bru### [at] alcatelaleniaspacefr> wrote:
>
>I was just asking a question about the evoked 'technical restrictions' which
>can be considered as part of the 'challenge' (re-read the discussion). Like
>you, I basically don't see why we should exclude non Hard-core POVers. But
>I had to get the opinion of people.
Sorry if I offended, I'm often too familiar. I appreciate all the trouble that
you are taking over this.
>Second, I suggested only one sdl file for POVers and one "MODEL" for
>modelers to match the fact that people don't have time to work until
>end-Feb, and thus, the scenes are likely to be rather simple (but
>experienced people can make an image that involves thousands of lines of
>sdl code or huge model with a lot of reuse). Also, as the idea of this
>pseudo ITRC round arose from a POV-related newsgroup, I had in mind that it
>would rather be sdl, and a better occasion to share code and experience than
>the IRTC itself. We are a little bit "between us". And we all want to have
>fun and learn, nothing more. It is no presidential campaign ...
Ah you're French and you have a president. I'm a Brit and only a subject, so
don't rub it in :-)
I was only pointing out that those of us that use modellers are restricted to
the output of the modeller and any rule that enters the scope has to be
followed. I hate sounding as if I'm nitpicking but I've been burned too often in
RL.
>As Hildur said the most simple now is to apply the traditional IRTC rules
>for what is acceptable or not, and forget about restrictions. Therefore,
>the topic must be defined.
>
>We will start a new thread dedicated to entries. I propose there will be no
>ranking, just comments and exchange.
I agree and suggest that we take up Steve's kind offer of web space.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 10:13:37 +0100, "Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet>
wrote:
>> Welcome among us, Tina ...
>>
>>
>
>She is a bit shy, you know... :-)
Her sister is not. You should see her from an other direction :-)
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Hildur K." <hil### [at] 3dcafemailevery1net> wrote:
> "Bruno Cabasson" <bru### [at] alcatelaleniaspacefr> wrote:
>
> >
> > ...I suggested only one sdl file for POVers and one "MODEL" for
> > modelers...........
>
> you mean by a one "model". What is the alternative?
>
> I understand a minimalistic approach is being discussed, one kind of
> primitive or primitives only etc. and I support this idea so far.
>
> I just need a little bit more clarification on how to implement this "one
> allowed to make the floor too? Or is this a one scene only approach? Not
> allowed to import element from other files?
>
> Does somebody have a clear idea about this?
>
Well, the concern here is only to define general guidelines. We have little
time, so let the scenes be 'simple'. When I say "one model", it is a global
idea
to avoid too much complexity. It is the same idea than 'a single POV-file'.
It might also reduce the difference between newbees and gurus and give a
better chance to all. I can confess that I did not have a clear idea of
what it actualy ment, if you want. No problem.
Of course you can put tens of objects in your model! The discusion was also
around he question of restrictions and rules for this pseudo-round. I
recall we just want to keep us busy until IRTC admins say something.
Perhaps I should have said 'from scratch', or 'not too big' or some kind of
concept like that. We just want to have fun and 'compete' a little more.
Btw: The topic is still on discussion...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> "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*.
If it's not clear, I meant 'Optimism'. Sorry.
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Hildur K." <hil### [at] 3dcafemailevery1net> wrote:
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> > "Hildur K." <hil### [at] 3dcafemailevery1net> wrote in message
> > news:web.45b7f9bc2adc5aeb505d35150@news.povray.org...
> > > Verm <pov### [at] thirteeendynucom> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Ok got an on topic idea, yup I could go with TINA CheP.
> > >
> > > Yeah me neither an English speaking person, what/who is TINA CheP????
> >
> > I fear you may well soon see via Poser.... (My idea, My idea! *Raises
> > hand*) ;)
> >
> > I think this name will stay now. > Nice Lady character. :o)
> >
> > ~Steve~
>
> I was the first to see Her, he, he... )
Lol, I think we *ALL* thought of that idea. But, you know, Tina Chep is a
new idea via TdeG (and will be a famous person now)that will hopefully
inspire the next generation of Povers. :o)
I think it's time to move on and improve our standards - and Tina Chep is
one way to do it...
>
"3D Povers are 3D Lovers too!" (tm) :o)))
>
> I mean I know the old joke... But somehow I have missed this abbreviation
> completely. I feel embarrassed, have to hide my red face for a while....
Oh, don't feel embarrassed H, I did exactly the same! ;)
~Steve~
>
> Hildur
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I recall the topics currently proposed:
. This is Not a Checkered Plane, aka TINA CheP
. The other side
. Sleep
. Confusion
. Rebirth
. Beauty
. Your favourite tools
. Degradation
. Something 2D in 3D
. timeless
. optimism
. optical illusion
. the universe
. Floccinaucinihilipilification
. alien flower
. splash!
. The Holly Grail
. loss of control
. message in the bottle
. IRTC in Hibernation
. Sleep of the IRTC
. Death of the IRTC?
. IRTC's end?
. just "New IRTC"
We also imagined some rectrictions with a fre topic:
. Only primitives (spheres, cylinders, cones, toruses, planes, boxes,
....)
. Only ONE primitive of your choice
. Black & White
I think it's time now to focus on the choice. So please give your opinion!!
Not much time left! Dead line for decision in about 1:30 hours (= idnight
french time).
Bruno
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The Holly Grail
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
With no surprise, and according to this discussion, the topic for our
pseudo-IRTC is:
"This is NOT a checkered plane"
IRTC rules apply.
Dead line for presentation (cannot say 'submission'): 28th feb.
You will be kept informed on this thread for relevant news.
A new thread will be started (in pbi?) for this purpose.
Thanks to contributors of this discussion, and especially Thomas de Groot,
the author of the topic, and the father of TINA CheP!!
My best pixels.
Bruno.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hooray! To work at last!
Something to think about... Do we want to establish a fairly standardized
method of attaching the equivalent of the traditional text file with title,
description, code, etc. It might be a good idea to give the new thread a
subject line that makes it clear that it is reserved for "final"
submissions. Should we establish a voluntary guideline asking "entrants"
to limit themselves to some reasonable number of "final" submissions, say
no more than three unless leaving out the fourth one would cause you great
personal distress? Thanks to all who took part in getting this going.
Best wishes to all,
Mike C.
P.S.
Anagram wise, PSEUDO IRTC = DO PICTURES = PURIST CODE
"Bruno Cabasson" <bru### [at] alcatelaleniaspacefr> wrote:
> With no surprise, and according to this discussion, the topic for our
> pseudo-IRTC is:
>
> "This is NOT a checkered plane"
>
> IRTC rules apply.
> Dead line for presentation (cannot say 'submission'): 28th feb.
> You will be kept informed on this thread for relevant news.
> A new thread will be started (in pbi?) for this purpose.
>
> Thanks to contributors of this discussion, and especially Thomas de Groot,
> the author of the topic, and the father of TINA CheP!!
>
> My best pixels.
>
> Bruno.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
