 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
