 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I believe his objection is to adding a *POV-RAY* scripting feature. That
would limit moray's new ability to export to formats other than .pov, which
was, again, 'Xander's original objection, IIRC.
Nieminen Mika wrote:
> Alexander Enzmann <xan### [at] mitre org> wrote:
> : Scripting is just fine. However, to keep Moray as general as possible,
> : writing "povray scripts..." seems limiting.
>
> This sentence looks quite contradictory to me.
> Why _adding_ a scripting feature would be _limiting_ moray? I don't
> understand.
>
> --
> main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
> ):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
--
You Know You've Been Raytracing Too Long When:
You purchase Toy Story for inspiration- Then do a better version for fun.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I think it could be done in such a way as to not be limited to POV.
As simple script-editor-tool that allows you to add a script as an object in
your Moray scene. The script object could have parameters that tell Moray
where to insert the script within the renderer output. If the plug-in allowed
for scripts to be written without care for specific syntax, why couldn't that
scripting information be included in the output, regardless of renderer. And
if the plug-in could allow scripts the be written WITH POV syntax in mind, then
perhaps a plug-in could be written for other renderers as well, such as BMRT.
I don't see how such a plug-in would limit the use of Moray. If anything, a
generic scripting tool would allow Moray to be that much more useful, and
renderer-specific scripting tools would do that much more again to make Moray
one of the most, if not the most, useful tools in our raytrace toolbox.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nieminen Mika wrote:
>
> Why _adding_ a scripting feature would be _limiting_ moray? I don't
> understand.
>
I think it was the "Instead of..." part that worried him.
-Nathan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nathan Kopp <Nat### [at] koppcom> wrote:
: I think it was the "Instead of..." part that worried him.
That "instead of making a plugin for each simple task" was not meant as
"remove the plugin feature and replace it with a scripting feature". It was
meant as "if you had a scripting language, you wouldn't be needing to ask
or make a plugin for each simple task but you could just write a little
script to do it instead, thus making moray a lot more powerful tool".
You could still make plugins if you wanted (and sometimes you have to,
because you can't do _every_ task with the scripting language (for example
some animation plugin or whatever)), but with a scripting language you could
achieve simple tasks easyly, use (povray) features not implemented in moray
(like adding a julia fractal or whatever), etc.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Its not just that- if, for example, someone did write an export to another
renderer, wouldn't it be better to have a general scripting language instead of
a POV-Ray based one? I do not object, one bit, to a general scripting
language(what about something like C? very well documented, and all you'd have
to do is have seperate headers or something. It would allow most people to use,
or write, simple to complex plugins, without worrying about owning M$VC++ and
knowing things like MFC. If it was C++, each new 'plugin' could be a class,
requiring how to save it(not required if it is a normal primitive), how to
represent its wireframe(see the last note), how to export it and what it
is(perhaps in a very generic way. Like a .raw file or something-just objects and
coordinates) and whatever else is needed. Overall, it might be pretty good if it
were a POV-script, but much better if it were something general.
Nieminen Mika wrote:
> Nathan Kopp <Nat### [at] koppcom> wrote:
> : I think it was the "Instead of..." part that worried him.
>
> That "instead of making a plugin for each simple task" was not meant as
> "remove the plugin feature and replace it with a scripting feature". It was
> meant as "if you had a scripting language, you wouldn't be needing to ask
> or make a plugin for each simple task but you could just write a little
> script to do it instead, thus making moray a lot more powerful tool".
> You could still make plugins if you wanted (and sometimes you have to,
> because you can't do _every_ task with the scripting language (for example
> some animation plugin or whatever)), but with a scripting language you could
> achieve simple tasks easyly, use (povray) features not implemented in moray
> (like adding a julia fractal or whatever), etc.
>
> --
> main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
> ):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
--
You Know You've Been Raytracing Too Long When:
You purchase Toy Story for inspiration- Then do a better version for fun.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alex Magidow <axi### [at] mninternet> wrote:
: Its not just that- if, for example, someone did write an export to another
: renderer, wouldn't it be better to have a general scripting language instead of
: a POV-Ray based one?
How do you use povray features not implemented in moray (for example some
objects, colefax's include files, etc)?
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nieminen Mika wrote:
>
> Alex Magidow <axi### [at] mninternet> wrote:
> : Its not just that- if, for example, someone did write an export to another
> : renderer, wouldn't it be better to have a general scripting language instead of
> : a POV-Ray based one?
>
> How do you use povray features not implemented in moray (for example some
> objects, colefax's include files, etc)?
The one question I have not heard addressed yet is if you expect Moray to
display the results of the written Pov script. This would of course require
Moray to have a Pov language parser added to it and Lutz has already mentioned
he does not want to spend the time to add one. You might as well edit the pov
file directly if you can't visualize it in Moray.
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/links.htm
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
: The one question I have not heard addressed yet is if you expect Moray to
: display the results of the written Pov script.
My original suggestion was that you could tell moray how to create the
wireframe for the object in script comments or something.
Moray could also understand simple #declares of floats and #whiles.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nieminen Mika wrote:
>
> Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
> : The one question I have not heard addressed yet is if you expect Moray to
> : display the results of the written Pov script.
>
> My original suggestion was that you could tell moray how to create the
> wireframe for the object in script comments or something.
> Moray could also understand simple #declares of floats and #whiles.
...which equates to turning Moray into a language parser instead of a simple wire
frame modelling program. I not arguing it's potential I am just pointing out the
reality of what you propose. It would make everyone happy who wishes that Moray
could read pov files directly and between you me and Lutz we certainly know how
many requests there have been for that.
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/links.htm
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
> The one question I have not heard addressed yet is if you expect Moray to
> display the results of the written Pov script. This would of course require
> Moray to have a Pov language parser added to it and Lutz has already mentioned
> he does not want to spend the time to add one. You might as well edit the pov
> file directly if you can't visualize it in Moray.
I did address that question earlier - sort of. The way I see this working, is that
when you chose the Script plugin object from the create menu, a simple wireframe would
be placed in your scene to represent the Script object. That wireframe doesn't
necessarily need to look like the results of your script. It would simply act as a
visual cue so you can access the script later for future editing. Perhaps the plugin
would allow you to choose your wireframe representation - cube, sphere, cylinder, UDO,
etc.
For example, if you wanted to place a Julia fractal in a Moray scene, you would create
a Script object, add the necessary code (including all transformations, bounding
boxes,
textures, etc), choose where in the output renderer code to insert the script, &
transform the wireframe to taste. Please note that this wireframe would only act as a
visual cue & would not in any way play a part in the actual location, rotation or size
of any object created within the script.
With this kind of ability, you could access any object within Include files, input
values beyond what Moray currently allows (values outside of 0.0 - 1.0), and most
importantly - access features within patched versions of POV.
I like modelling & staging my scenes with Moray. The big thing that I don't like
about
Moray is that if I want to add anything that Moray doesn't currently handle, I need to
edit the output POV scene file each & everytime that I make a change to the Moray
model. Being able to add these scripts directly into Moray would greatly reduce the
time & effort required to re-add all of the extra scripting each time I tweek a light
or a texture.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
