 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I don't know if this was asked or not, but will there be MegaPOV support in
the next Moray version?
Or will POV 3.5 be out at the time and so it won't really matter and will be
fully official? ;-)
-Ian
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ian Burgmyer wrote:
>
> I don't know if this was asked or not, but will there be MegaPOV support in
> the next Moray version?
Not that I presume to know for sure but I don't think Lutz is in the
habit of supporting unofficial versions of POV-Ray - no matter how
great they may be.
> Or will POV 3.5 be out at the time and so it won't really matter and will be
> fully official? ;-)
It will likely be sometime after the release of 3.5. How else will
Lutz know what features to try to support ?
Presumptuously yours,
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken <tyl### [at] pacbell net> wrote in message
news:39584A71.70F683B9@pacbell.net...
> > Or will POV 3.5 be out at the time and so it won't really matter and
will be
> > fully official? ;-)
>
> It will likely be sometime after the release of 3.5. How else will
> Lutz know what features to try to support ?
D'oh... ;-)
-Ian
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote...
>
>
> > Or will POV 3.5 be out at the time and so it won't really matter and
will be
> > fully official? ;-)
>
> It will likely be sometime after the release of 3.5. How else will
> Lutz know what features to try to support ?
Because Lutz is a member of the POV-Team, he will know the feature list
prior to the release of POV 3.5, so he will be able to do significant work
on Moray to support those features without making you all wait too long.
:-)
-Nathan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hmm...any idea on if the next ver of MoRay will support looks_like and
skysphere? (Well, plus 3.5 features, heh)
Just curious cuz' I like those alot :) hehehe
Tim Soderstrom
TigerHawk
Nathan Kopp wrote:
> Because Lutz is a member of the POV-Team, he will know the feature list
> prior to the release of POV 3.5, so he will be able to do significant work
> on Moray to support those features without making you all wait too long.
> :-)
>
> -Nathan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi TigerHawk, you recently wrote in moray.win:
> Hmm...any idea on if the next ver of MoRay will support looks_like and
> skysphere? (Well, plus 3.5 features, heh)
Moray will probably never support looks_like, because it's simply a
group with the light and the object, where the object has the NoShadow
flag set.
- Lutz
email : lut### [at] stmuccom
Web : http://www.stmuc.com/moray
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 11:55:51 +0200, Lutz Kretzschmar wrote...
> Hi TigerHawk, you recently wrote in moray.win:
>
> > Hmm...any idea on if the next ver of MoRay will support looks_like and
> > skysphere? (Well, plus 3.5 features, heh)
> Moray will probably never support looks_like, because it's simply a
> group with the light and the object, where the object has the NoShadow
> flag set.
Maybe this should be put into Moray's docs in 24 point, bright red,
underlined type, as it's something that seems to be asked here on a semi-
regular basis...
Personally, I'd like to be able to specify an area light as an area
spotlight, in a possibly vain attempt to cut render times slightly...
<grin>
Bye for now,
Jamie.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Heh, well sorry for walking into it - I hadn't realized that many people asked
that question. But I don't understand exactly what you mean. A no_shadow flag,
sure, that's fine, but that's not the same as saying this light source IS
this. Perhaps you can clarify this for me?
Tim Soderstrom
TigerHawk
Jamie Davison wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 11:55:51 +0200, Lutz Kretzschmar wrote...
> > Hi TigerHawk, you recently wrote in moray.win:
> >
> > > Hmm...any idea on if the next ver of MoRay will support looks_like and
> > > skysphere? (Well, plus 3.5 features, heh)
> > Moray will probably never support looks_like, because it's simply a
> > group with the light and the object, where the object has the NoShadow
> > flag set.
>
> Maybe this should be put into Moray's docs in 24 point, bright red,
> underlined type, as it's something that seems to be asked here on a semi-
> regular basis...
>
> Personally, I'd like to be able to specify an area light as an area
> spotlight, in a possibly vain attempt to cut render times slightly...
> <grin>
>
> Bye for now,
> Jamie.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 14:58:31 -0500, TigerHawk wrote...
> Heh, well sorry for walking into it - I hadn't realized that many people asked
> that question. But I don't understand exactly what you mean. A no_shadow flag,
> sure, that's fine, but that's not the same as saying this light source IS
> this. Perhaps you can clarify this for me?
I wasn't having a go at you, honest.
All that the looks_like tag does is create internally a group containing
the light source and the object it looks like.
So in Moray, you just do it manually.
(I may have got this wrong, but that's how I understand it)
Bye for now,
Jamie.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lutz Kretzschmar <lut### [at] stmuccom> wrote:
: Moray will probably never support looks_like, because it's simply a
: group with the light and the object, where the object has the NoShadow
: flag set.
Well, there is another difference.
This:
light_source
{ <1,1,0>, 1
looks_like { sphere { 0, .1 pigment { rgb 1 } finish { ambient 1 } } }
}
produces a different result than this:
union
{ light_source { <1,1,0>, 1 }
sphere { 0, .1 no_shadow pigment { rgb 1 } finish { ambient 1 } }
}
The difference is left as an excercise.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I wasn't having a go at you, honest.
Hehaehae....no worries, I've done far worse anyways :)
> All that the looks_like tag does is create internally a group containing
> the light source and the object it looks like.
Hmm...the way I understand it is that if I were to to do it manually, I would place
the light source directly infront of whatever I am assigning as a light source (we
will say a light bulb). I thought looks_like eliminated the need to do that (so the
object acts as the light, casting light uniformally)? That's the way I thought about
it - correct me if I'm wrong :)
Happy Tracing,
Tim Soderstrom
TigerHawk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi Warp, you recently wrote in moray.win:
> The difference is left as an excercise.
Can you give me a hint, no time to try this out. If you know, please
tell. I always thought the result was identical.
- Lutz
email : lut### [at] stmuccom
Web : http://www.stmuc.com/moray
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In this one:
light_source
{ <1,1,0>, 1
looks_like { sphere { 0, .1 pigment { rgb 1 } finish { ambient 1 } } }
}
the sphere is translated by the location of the light source. That is,
this produces a sphere that is located at <1,1,0>.
In this one:
union
{ light_source { <1,1,0>, 1 }
sphere { 0, .1 no_shadow pigment { rgb 1 } finish { ambient 1 } }
}
however, the sphere is not translated anywhere (of course), so it produces
a sphere that is located at <0,0,0>.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 17:44:51 -0500, TigerHawk wrote...
> > I wasn't having a go at you, honest.
>
> Hehaehae....no worries, I've done far worse anyways :)
No, it's just that recently I've noticed my postings seeming to be
incredibly caustic and inflammatory, and I'm not doing it deliberately.
maybe I'm just having one of those months <sigh>
> > All that the looks_like tag does is create internally a group containing
> > the light source and the object it looks like.
>
> Hmm...the way I understand it is that if I were to to do it manually, I would place
> the light source directly infront of whatever I am assigning as a light source (we
> will say a light bulb). I thought looks_like eliminated the need to do that (so the
> object acts as the light, casting light uniformally)? That's the way I thought about
> it - correct me if I'm wrong :)
You can create a sphere at <0,0,0> and a point light source at <0,0,0>
and as long as you set the sphere to no_shadow, the light source will
apply to the rest of the scene as if the sphere wasn't there.
As far as I understand it, this is all that POV does internally when you
specify a looks_like. (Although it creates a group containing the light
and sphere, which is easy enough to do in Moray :)
In other words, all looks_like does is put a visible, completely
transparent (can you say oxymoron? :) object around the light source.
The light source still acts as a point/spot/area light, regardless of how
big the looks_like object is.
Did that make any sense? And if not, would somebody else like to try
explaining it?
Bye for now,
Jamie.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi Warp, you recently wrote in moray.win:
> In this one:
> .....
> the sphere is translated by the location of the light source. That is,
> this produces a sphere that is located at <1,1,0>.
>
> In this one:
> ....
> however, the sphere is not translated anywhere (of course), so it produces
> a sphere that is located at <0,0,0>.
Aw gee, and I thought it was something internal that I hadn't come
across<g>. This is a non-issue in Moray though, since you can see
where the looks_like object is placed, relative to the light.
I assume then, that
light_source
{ <1,1,0>, 1
looks_like { sphere { 0, .1 pigment { rgb 1 } finish { ambient 1 } }
}
... and ....
union
{ light_source { <1,1,0>, 1 }
sphere {
0, .1 no_shadow pigment { rgb 1 } finish { ambient 1 }
translate <1,1,0>
}
}
will light scene in the same way, right?
- Lutz
email : lut### [at] stmuccom
Web : http://www.stmuc.com/moray
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lutz Kretzschmar <lut### [at] stmuccom> wrote:
: I assume then, that
: light_source
: { <1,1,0>, 1
: looks_like { sphere { 0, .1 pigment { rgb 1 } finish { ambient 1 } }
: }
: ... and ....
: union
: { light_source { <1,1,0>, 1 }
: sphere {
: 0, .1 no_shadow pigment { rgb 1 } finish { ambient 1 }
: translate <1,1,0>
: }
: }
: will light scene in the same way, right?
Yes, I think so.
My intention was not to say "these two things are completely different so
moray should support both". They are not completely different, but they differ
only in minor details.
I was just being picky because you said that they do the same thing so I
had to show that they are not exactly the same thing.
Anyways, never mind :)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> In other words, all looks_like does is put a visible, completely
> transparent (can you say oxymoron? :) object around the light source.
> The light source still acts as a point/spot/area light, regardless of how
> big the looks_like object is.
>
> Did that make any sense? And if not, would somebody else like to try
> explaining it?
Yes, that makes perfect sense - I had not realized the mechanics of such an idea would
work - I thought no_shadow simply ment that the object doesn't cast a shadow on the
ground
- it hadn't occoured to me that that would affect other things as well (and that was
pretty dumb, I suppose :)
Thanks for clarifying that for me!
Tim Soderstrom
PsiTron / TigerHawk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
