"Tim Cook" <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> schreef in bericht
news:44452155$1@news.povray.org...
> Stephen wrote:
> > IIRC his reason was, that's the way he wants to do it and that's the way
it
> > will be done. Having said that, I like the Z is up coordinate system as
> > that is the way I see the world.
>
> Have a scene setting checkbox to switch between modes?
>

Indeed! That would be an improvement.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:02:52 -0700, Patrick Elliott
<sha### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:


maybe you try Rheingold3D (www.tb-software.com): it supports may of
your requests, see below:

>Yeah, mesh editing would be nice (especially if it included being able to 
>scale an image to the background as you build a custom mesh, which is a 

Working with backgrounds is supported or just pin an image to any
plane

>feature missing from like 90% of them. If you are not an expert on making 
>something like characters in 3D and even if you are, it helps a lot. But, 
>its not a critical feature. The thing that caused me the most problems 
>with Moray where a) floating point precision problems. I.e. POV had 
>higher accuracy, so in some cases you have to manually "adjust" things to 
>be correct, b) incomplete SDL support and c) a coordinate system that is 

Rheingold3D supports easy POV code "injection", so any attribute or
even "custom" materials are possible to export.

>actually the reverse of the POV-Ray default. None of these are major 
>issues, but in some ways it would be like if they made the Maya editor 
>support only 90% of the features of the Maya engine, then forced you to 
>tweak the rest by hand. Its annoying, especially when you can't even do 
>something like selecting, "Media: Muddy Water", from a list and "know" 
>that the result will be something reasonably expected, instead of having 
>to spend a lot of time fiddling with it to guess at the right settings. 
>In other words, templates for some known uses of some features and at 
>least basic support for simple objects. Heck, even if you had to build a 
>basic approximation algorithm for isosurfaces into it, to produce a rough 
>mesh that would "actually" show more or less where it was in the scene, 
>that would help. Instead you are lucky to get a square bounding box for 
>some things and some are not even available.
>
>As good as Moray has been, its got some persistent flaws.

-tb

Post a reply to this message