 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi all,
please visit the Moray news page at
http://www.stmuc.com/moray/menews.html
Regards,
- Lutz
email : lut### [at] stmuc com
Web : http://www.stmuc.com/moray
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lutz,
Reviewing the updated Moray news page left me with a couple of
questions.
The news makes clear that an update to Moray will only be supporting
*some* of the new features of 3.5. Might you take a moment to
elaborate on this? Would incomplete support of 3.5 be due to
difficulty of implentation, or time and expense? If an updated Moray
was released promptly with partial new feature support, would you be
planning something resembling complete feature support at some point
in the future?
Angus
On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 14:49:39 +0200, Lutz Kretzschmar <lut### [at] stmuccom>
wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>please visit the Moray news page at
>http://www.stmuc.com/moray/menews.html
>
>Regards,
>
>- Lutz
> email : lut### [at] stmuccom
> Web : http://www.stmuc.com/moray
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> please visit the Moray news page at
> http://www.stmuc.com/moray/menews.html
3.5 no-rad fix - sure thing
uv mapping? hot dang!!
--
Rick
Kitty5 WebDesign - http://Kitty5.com
POV-Ray News & Resources - http://Povray.co.uk
TEL : +44 (01270) 501101 - FAX : +44 (01270) 251105 - ICQ : 15776037
PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi none.provided.net, you recently wrote in moray.win:
> Might you take a moment to elaborate on this?
POV-Ray 3.5 has very many new features that we will not be able to
support for the next version (time and expense).
Which of those features we will be supporting depends partly on the
feedback we get and on the complexity of the features.
- Lutz
email : lut### [at] stmuccom
Web : http://www.stmuc.com/moray
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lutz Kretzschmar wrote:
> Which of those features we will be supporting depends partly on the
> feedback we get and on the complexity of the features.
Photons. Gotta have photons. *drool*
Also a tutorial for 'media' ;)
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.scifi-fantasy.com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lutz Kretzschmar wrote in message
<2k4est0t32dm5vtdvej12uqi56obmfl6pt@4ax.com>...
>Hi none.provided.net, you recently wrote in moray.win:
>
>> Might you take a moment to elaborate on this?
>POV-Ray 3.5 has very many new features that we will not be able to
>support for the next version (time and expense).
>
>Which of those features we will be supporting depends partly on the
>feedback we get and on the complexity of the features.
Can we request not-exactly PovRay3.5 features. Like real-time splines,
perhaps.
Or mesh2 format (which could be vertex-edited in Moray itself,
perhaps)
Sphere_sweeps?
Isosurfaces?
mmm...actually, the best at this stage, would probably be 3ds import
in Moray mdl form. But, I think, Baier is already working on that.
Whatever you do decide, it's delightful news.
Regards,
Anoop
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
anoop wrote:
> Isosurfaces?
Moray would need a function parser. Not likely.
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi Ken, you recently wrote in moray.win:
> > Isosurfaces?
> Moray would need a function parser. Not likely.
The difficulty would not be the function parser, but visualizing the
surface. Of course, I could just supply an edit box for the and pass
it verbatim to POV-Ray, but that's asking for trouble....
- Lutz
email : lut### [at] stmuccom
Web : http://www.stmuc.com/moray
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > > Isosurfaces?
> > Moray would need a function parser. Not likely.
> The difficulty would not be the function parser, but visualizing the
> surface. Of course, I could just supply an edit box for the and pass
> it verbatim to POV-Ray, but that's asking for trouble....
but better than nothing - I hate having to half do a scene in moray, then
manually hack it in pov as once I start there is no return to moray.
I say text boxes everywhere, for everything, so we can do unsupported stuff
yet still maintain the mdl file format
--
Rick
Kitty5 WebDesign - http://Kitty5.com
POV-Ray News & Resources - http://Povray.co.uk
TEL : +44 (01270) 501101 - FAX : +44 (01270) 251105 - ICQ : 15776037
PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rick [Kitty5] wrote in message <3bcafb2c@news.povray.org>...
>> > > Isosurfaces?
>> > Moray would need a function parser. Not likely.
>> The difficulty would not be the function parser, but visualizing
the
>> surface. Of course, I could just supply an edit box for the and
pass
>> it verbatim to POV-Ray, but that's asking for trouble....
>
>but better than nothing - I hate having to half do a scene in moray,
then
>manually hack it in pov as once I start there is no return to moray.
>
>I say text boxes everywhere, for everything, so we can do unsupported
stuff
>yet still maintain the mdl file format
And probably quite a few others would agree on this matter. We could
always use Pov-Ray for the visualisation: in any case, it is
beautifully integrated.
Regards,
Anoop
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
