I am experimenting with the isosurface plugin in the Beta3 version of Moray
(See example in moray.binaries).
What I don't understand is why the 'ridges' are pointing downwards, despite
what is said in the help of POV-Ray. I want them to stick upwards, but how?
I tried several things within the function, but I seem not to understand
something.
Help?

Thomas de Groot

Post a reply to this message

Thomas,
I was not aware that there was an isosurface plugin for moray. Where do I
find it?
Steve Shelby

Thomas de Groot <t.d### [at] internlnet> wrote in message
news:3e101424$1@news.povray.org...
> I am experimenting with the isosurface plugin in the Beta3 version of
Moray
> (See example in moray.binaries).
> What I don't understand is why the 'ridges' are pointing downwards,
despite
> what is said in the help of POV-Ray. I want them to stick upwards, but
how?
> I tried several things within the function, but I seem not to understand
> something.
> Help?
>
> Thomas de Groot
>
>

Post a reply to this message

> I was not aware that there was an isosurface plugin for moray. Where do I
> find it?
> Steve Shelby

There is one written for the Fullmoon Lua Scripting plugin, follow the links
from the Moray plugins page.
You can also get it from ca.geocities.com/morayplugin/
It does not show a wireframe of the isosurface, but only the contained_by
statement.

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen,
Thank you. Now I have something else on which to spend my time that I should
be spending on something else. ;~^)
Steve

StephenS <ssh### [at] echelonca> wrote in message
news:3e13a175$1@news.povray.org...
>
> > I was not aware that there was an isosurface plugin for moray. Where do
I
> > find it?
> > Steve Shelby
>
> There is one written for the Fullmoon Lua Scripting plugin, follow the
links
> from the Moray plugins page.
> You can also get it from ca.geocities.com/morayplugin/
> It does not show a wireframe of the isosurface, but only the contained_by
> statement.
>
> Stephen
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Oh, by the way, Stephen,
This is a triffle really, but would it be possible to add an "#include
"functions.inc" command to the plugin? Just laziness of myself, I guess...

Thomas

"StephenS" <ssh### [at] echelonca> schreef in bericht
news:3e13a175$1@news.povray.org...
>
> > I was not aware that there was an isosurface plugin for moray. Where do
I
> > find it?
> > Steve Shelby
>
> There is one written for the Fullmoon Lua Scripting plugin, follow the
links
> from the Moray plugins page.
> You can also get it from ca.geocities.com/morayplugin/
> It does not show a wireframe of the isosurface, but only the contained_by
> statement.
>
> Stephen
>
>

Post a reply to this message

> Oh, by the way, Stephen,
> This is a triffle really, but would it be possible to add an "#include
> "functions.inc" command to the plugin? Just laziness of myself, I guess...
>
> Thomas
 I had this when I was developing and testing the plugin (I'm also lazy). I
decided it was making the generated pov code needlessly larger, including
functions.inc for each and every isosurface in the scene. What I chose to do
instead was to include it in the Scene/Settings/Includes/Scene_comments like
this:
*/
#include "functions.inc"
#include "math.inc"
#include "transforms.inc"
/*
The slash and asterisk are part of what you need. I saved this in my
MorayStart.mdl file, and have the "New Scene loads this scene" checked (from
View/Configuration/Moray). The default for Moray is to point to this file,
if you haven't changed it yet. The down side is you now include these even
if you don't use them in your file (every new file), and you may have to
remove some if you wanted to be pov3.1 compatible.

Post a reply to this message

Yes, this is a nice solution. Especially with the inversed comment signs!!
However, in view of the down side you mention, I think I prefer to include
the incs myself (in the include section of Moray) whenever I use the
isosurface plugin. Which is a great plugin, by the way!

Thomas

"StephenS" <ssh### [at] echelonca> schreef in bericht
news:3e158e5e@news.povray.org...
> > Oh, by the way, Stephen,
> > This is a triffle really, but would it be possible to add an "#include
> > "functions.inc" command to the plugin? Just laziness of myself, I
guess...
> >
> > Thomas
>  I had this when I was developing and testing the plugin (I'm also lazy).
I
> decided it was making the generated pov code needlessly larger, including
> functions.inc for each and every isosurface in the scene. What I chose to
do
> instead was to include it in the Scene/Settings/Includes/Scene_comments
like
> this:
> */
> #include "functions.inc"
> #include "math.inc"
> #include "transforms.inc"
> /*
> The slash and asterisk are part of what you need. I saved this in my
> MorayStart.mdl file, and have the "New Scene loads this scene" checked
(from
> View/Configuration/Moray). The default for Moray is to point to this file,
> if you haven't changed it yet. The down side is you now include these even
> if you don't use them in your file (every new file), and you may have to
> remove some if you wanted to be pov3.1 compatible.
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlnet> wrote in message
news:3e16ec66@news.povray.org...
> Yes, this is a nice solution. Especially with the inversed comment signs!!
> However, in view of the down side you mention, I think I prefer to include
> the incs myself (in the include section of Moray) whenever I use the
> isosurface plugin. Which is a great plugin, by the way!
>
> Thomas

I can't take any credit. I had no idea of this until someone else listed
this as a solution to a problem.

An alternate solution is to include this in one of the declare statements:
   XX=0; #include "functions.inc" #declare XX=0
This will be exported to povray as
  #declare XX=0; #include "functions.inc" #declare XX=0 ;
It is my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong) that if you use
Moray's include section, only full path names are used.
Example:
#include "C:\Program Files\POV-Ray for Windows v3.5\include\functions.inc"
If you share your Moray files with others, they will need to adjust the path
name if different. For me this is only a minor annoyance, you would have to
decide for yourself.
Perhaps if I update the plugin at some time, I should add a section for
#include, in a similar way I do for #declare.

Thank you for your kind words, but I think it's only an adequate plugin, a
great plugin would have a better wire frame :-)

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Looks good Stephen. I shall have a try at that next week probably (in the
mean time, have to earn money, sigh)
Ok for the adequate/great definition. I totally agree! Still, having a
nicely working plugin is... nice! But one is never finished, I guess.
 Thanks!!

Thomas

"StephenS" <ssh### [at] echelonca> schreef in bericht
news:3e20a27f$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlnet> wrote in message
> news:3e16ec66@news.povray.org...
> > Yes, this is a nice solution. Especially with the inversed comment
signs!!
> > However, in view of the down side you mention, I think I prefer to
include
> > the incs myself (in the include section of Moray) whenever I use the
> > isosurface plugin. Which is a great plugin, by the way!
> >
> > Thomas
>
> I can't take any credit. I had no idea of this until someone else listed
> this as a solution to a problem.
>
> An alternate solution is to include this in one of the declare statements:
>    XX=0; #include "functions.inc" #declare XX=0
> This will be exported to povray as
>   #declare XX=0; #include "functions.inc" #declare XX=0 ;
> It is my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong) that if you use
> Moray's include section, only full path names are used.
> Example:
> #include "C:\Program Files\POV-Ray for Windows v3.5\include\functions.inc"
> If you share your Moray files with others, they will need to adjust the
path
> name if different. For me this is only a minor annoyance, you would have
to
> decide for yourself.
> Perhaps if I update the plugin at some time, I should add a section for
> #include, in a similar way I do for #declare.
>
> Thank you for your kind words, but I think it's only an adequate plugin, a
> great plugin would have a better wire frame :-)
>
> Stephen
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message