To make things clear first:

I thought your VFAQ is a good idea and I even contributed to it with a few
Moray UDO related things.
I *still* think it is a good idea and a good thing to have.

BUT: With creating the VFAQ you simply create a voluntary service maintained
by yourself, which may or may not be used by other people, at *their*
discretion - not yours! The mere existance of the VFAQ does in no way compel
people to *use* it - of course they should (if they know about it), but if
they don't, it's their problem.

For people asking questions that are already answered in the VFAQ that
means: If you don't use the VFAQ you risk that nobody answers your
questions, since everybody knows it is answered in the VFAQ.
For people answering questions that are already answered in the VFAQ: Well,
if they have the time to spare? Why not?
And: Contributing to the VFAQ is equally voluntarily as maintaining it. I
don't remember me having agreed to anything like that with my contribution I
will from then on always study the VFAQ closely and will always point people
to it. Quite frankly: I don't have the time to study the VFAQ, so I don't
know which questions are answered in it, so I can't point people to it
either...

One must keep in mind, that there are always new people coming to a
newsgroup: It's not always the same guys hanging around all the time where
one could truly get mad if such a person would ask a question with an
obvious answer (I can imagine the sarcastic replies we would read if
"Linkmaster" Ken would post a question asking for the URL of, say, Moray, or
if Ron Parker would ask if it was possible to get access to POV-Ray's
sourcecode).

For such a new member of the group, the question actually is *not* a VFAQ,
not even a FAQ. He probably thinks it is the first time this comes up.
Because let's face it: *Nobody* carefully reads *all* older posts in a group
before posting his own first message.
It is only the requlars that read the same question for the 100th time who
get annoyed, while the poster is not even aware of what he is doing. More
important: The poster is probably not even aware of the *existance* of a
FAQ/VFAQ, so there was no chance he could have checked it first. After all,
the URL to your VFAQ is not exactly something each POV user is informed
about right from the start.

Replying to such an "innocent" frequently-recurring posting in a way that
berates or scoldes the asker is not the way. Simply point him to the FAQ or
ignore him. No more. It is not really friendly to give a new member of a
newsgroup a welcome of the sort that he feels stupid and "newbie" right
away, nor is it the best way to introduce yourself (as a regular he will
probably "meet" later again) to him.

Now, that said, I grant you that you probably had the best intentions of
helping the original poster, and I also know that you post frequently and
helpfully, so please don't see my comments to your replies like I would try
to imply that you are a rude, unhelpful, generally annyoing person - no at
all!

Greetings,
Johannes.

Post a reply to this message

This lighting question reminds me... is it possible to see the source 
code to the algorithms POV uses to compute illumination?

Post a reply to this message

Ron Parker wrote:

> This lighting question reminds me... is it possible to see the source
> code to the algorithms POV uses to compute illumination?

 I don't understand.

--
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Jan 1999 06:59:44 -0800, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
>Ron Parker wrote:
>
>> This lighting question reminds me... is it possible to see the source
>> code to the algorithms POV uses to compute illumination?
>
> I don't understand.

No, no, no.   You were supposed to follow up with "I heard that it 
might be online somewhere, but I don't have a URL."

Post a reply to this message

Ron Parker wrote in message <369e0940.0@news.povray.org>...
>On Thu, 14 Jan 1999 06:59:44 -0800, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
>>Ron Parker wrote:
>>
>>> This lighting question reminds me... is it possible to see the source
>>> code to the algorithms POV uses to compute illumination?
>>
>> I don't understand.
>
>No, no, no.   You were supposed to follow up with "I heard that it
>might be online somewhere, but I don't have a URL."

You really blew it, Ken!  :-))

Johannes.

Post a reply to this message

In povray.newusers Johannes Hubert <jhu### [at] algonetse> wrote:
: BUT: With creating the VFAQ you simply create a voluntary service maintained
: by yourself, which may or may not be used by other people, at *their*
: discretion - not yours! The mere existance of the VFAQ does in no way compel
: people to *use* it - of course they should (if they know about it), but if
: they don't, it's their problem.

  You understood me wrong. I wasn't asking people to use the VFAQ. I wasn't
saying that "you contributed? you should use it as well!".
  I was just wondering _why_ people aren't using it.

  So my message was not this: "Hey, nobody is using the VFAQ. Please, use it."
but instead: "I wonder why nobody is using the VFAQ although it got a good
feedback".

: Quite frankly: I don't have the time to study the VFAQ, so I don't
: know which questions are answered in it, so I can't point people to it
: either...

  But you have time to answer the same questions again and again?

: It is only the requlars that read the same question for the 100th time who
: get annoyed, while the poster is not even aware of what he is doing.

  The point in the VFAQ was not avoiding the annoyance of seeing the same
questions and answers many times. Its goal is to minimize your typing work
and valuable time. Instead of having to type a 10-20 lines answer, you
can answer with a couple of lines (one of which is copypasted from the
browser).

: Replying to such an "innocent" frequently-recurring posting in a way that
: berates or scoldes the asker is not the way. Simply point him to the FAQ or
: ignore him. No more. It is not really friendly to give a new member of a
: newsgroup a welcome of the sort that he feels stupid and "newbie" right
: away, nor is it the best way to introduce yourself (as a regular he will
: probably "meet" later again) to him.

  I'm sorry if I have offended someone with a thing like this.

: Now, that said, I grant you that you probably had the best intentions of
: helping the original poster, and I also know that you post frequently and
: helpfully, so please don't see my comments to your replies like I would try
: to imply that you are a rude, unhelpful, generally annyoing person - no at
: all!

  I know, although sometimes I feel like that (ie. a rude person).

-- 
main(i){char*_="BdsyFBThhHFBThhHFRz]NFTITQF|DJIFHQhhF";while(i=
*_++)for(;i>1;printf("%s",i-70?i&1?"[]":" ":(i=0,"\n")),i/=2);} /*- Warp. -*/

Post a reply to this message

My dogs are looking at me like I'm insane due to the GALES of laughter
erupting from me as I read this thread.!!!

Nieminen, you didn't over react (much).  Geez, you were nicer than Ron
Parker in some of his RTFM responses ... :>)

Jim


Nieminen Mika wrote in message <369dc346.0@news.povray.org>...
>In povray.newusers Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
>: Have I blown enough sunshine up your yet yet ?
>
>  There's no need to be so sarcastic... :)
>  Ok, maybe I exaggerated a bit. I'm sorry.
>
>--
>main(i){char*_="BdsyFBThhHFBThhHFRz]NFTITQF|DJIFHQhhF";while(i=
>*_++)for(;i>1;printf("%s",i-70?i&1?"[]":" ":(i=0,"\n")),i/=2);} /*-
Warp. -*/

Post a reply to this message

... more laughter,  I'm rolling on the floor now !!!

Jim

Ron Parker wrote in message <369e0940.0@news.povray.org>...
>On Thu, 14 Jan 1999 06:59:44 -0800, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
>>Ron Parker wrote:
>>
>>> This lighting question reminds me... is it possible to see the source
>>> code to the algorithms POV uses to compute illumination?
>>
>> I don't understand.
>
>No, no, no.   You were supposed to follow up with "I heard that it
>might be online somewhere, but I don't have a URL."

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Jan 1999 15:14:29 -0500, Jim Kress <jim### [at] dccmailcom> wrote:
>My dogs are looking at me like I'm insane due to the GALES of laughter
>erupting from me as I read this thread.!!!
>
>Nieminen, you didn't over react (much).  Geez, you were nicer than Ron
>Parker in some of his RTFM responses ... :>)

I thought I was usually pretty nice.  Must give you an idea how
sarcastic I can be in real life, eh?  :)  Maybe I'm just too curt.

But in reality I almost never answer RTFM questions, because I 
know dozens of other people will.  Surely you're thinking of one 
or two specific responses; could you email me with the ones you 
have in mind?  I'd hate for people to have an allergic reaction
to my ascerbic personality.

Post a reply to this message

How about doing some adjustments on this example?:

//BEGIN
#declare rLED=
object {
sphere {0,1} //shape only (replace with yours)
 pigment {rgbf<1,0,0,.5>} //lower or raise filter amount
  normal {granite .025 scale .025} //reduce further if grainy
   finish {ambient .75 diffuse .1 phong .5 phong_size 5}
}

light_source {0,
 color rgb<1,0,0> //change 0 to location vector if placement needed
  looks_like {rLED}
   fade_distance 2 fade_power 2 //make distance fully lit maximum
}

camera
{
  location  <0.0 , 0.0 ,-9.0>
  direction 3*z
  look_at   <0.0 , 0.0 , 0.0>
}

plane {y,-1 rotate -15*x pigment {rgb 1}}
//END

I'm guessing this question has already had many answers but I forgot by
the time I finished reading the follow-ups. Wonder if a chat-like
newsgroup is feasible? :|


Neil Mercer wrote:
> 
> Hi there,
> 
>     I'm trying to model (amongst other things) a LED.  Building the shape
> has not really been a problem, but now I want to be able to include a light
> inside it so I can make the LED light up (obviously).  I'm having trouble
> getting the light to look right.  So far it either floods the scene with
> light (i.e. too intense) or merely makes the LED structure look like it has
> a shiny surface texture.  What I would like is that nice glow that looks so
> simple and easy!
> 
>     Also, at this stage I've been colouring the LED itself and using a white
> (or near-white light).  Would it be better to have a clear LED and a
> coloured light?
> 
> Thanks in advance for any help.
> 
> Neil.

-- 
 omniVERSE: beyond the universe
  http://members.aol.com/inversez/POVring.htm
=Bob

Post a reply to this message