The hardcore povrayer test.

  Read the allegations below. For each allegation that is true in your
case, you receive the amount of points in parentheses at the end of the
line. The maximum point amount is 78. Please be honest.
  My personal score is 22.

1. You have participated in the IRTC and got to the top 20 best images. (2)
2. You have won a price in the IRTC. (3)
3. You have made bicubic patches by hand (and they worked as you expected). (2)
4. You have made a program which outputs bicubic patches. (1)
5. You have made big triangle meshes by hand. (1)
6. You have used a poly object bigger than 4th degree. (1)
7. You have calculated the polynomial for that poly object by yourself
   (instead of just trying random values). (2)
8. You know the format of a PCM file. (1)
9. You have made one by hand. (1)
10. You have made a program which outputs a df3 file and used it in a
    scene. (1)
11. You know what a df3 file is. (1)
12. You have made a patch for povray. (3)
13. Your patch is included in the superpatch or at least it's popular. (2)
14. Your patch will probably be included in povray 3.5. (2)
15. You have made a popular tool for povray. (2)
16. You have used every object type, every camera type, every light source
    type, every media type, etc. and know how to use them. (2)
17. You remember the terms of the torus-shaped quartic so that you could
    type the polynomial at any time. (2)
18. You understand perfectly the table at page 212 of the povray 3.1 manual
    and use it to create your poly objects. (2)
19. You know what does 'sturm' mean and how it's calculated. (2)
20. The intensity multiplier curves and light fading functions in the light
    source section in the povray manual are very clear and you understand
    them perfectly and you actually use them to choose your light source
    types. (2)
21. You understand how photon mapping works (at algorithm level). (1)
22. You have found the 'average normal bug' by yourself in a povray version
    previous than 3.1e. (1)
23. You know exactly what was causing it. (2)
24. You never include the povray include libraries (like colors.inc) because
    they slow parsing, but always define your colors, textures, etc by
    yourself. (1)
25. You only use the png format when working with povray. (1)
26. You always use it with alpha channel. (1)
27. It's very easy to you to make slope maps and actually you often use
    them to make your textures. (1)
28. You know what the 'use_index' keyword is used for without looking at
    the manual. (1)
29. You understand the matrix transformation and you can write them by
    hand. (2)
30. You know how to calculate the matrix from any number of consecutive
    transformations (translate, scale, rotate). (1)
31. You have set up emacs with povray enhancements (like automatic indentation
    and syntax highlighting) by yourself. (1)
32. You can list all the povray reserved keywords without looking at the
    manual. (2)
33. You could make all the Chris Colefax's includes and macros by yourself
    if you wanted. (3)
34. You use frequency, phase, octaves, omega and lambda without problems
    when creating your own textures. (1)
35. You can tell what does each one of them do (without looking at the
    documentation). (1)
36. You understand the scattering function pictures in the media section of
    the documentation. (1)
37. You remember all the keywords that can be put in a global_settings
    block. (1)
38. You know what does they mean and how to use them. (1)
39. Making good-looking radiosity images is not a problem to you. (1)
40. You remember all the built-in float and vector identifiers. (1)
41. You use all the vector and string functions without problem. (1)
42. Macros, arrays and file-IO directives are a piece of cake. (1)
43. You never get the "camera is inside non-hollow object" warning. If you
    ever get it, it's absolutely intentional. (1)
44. You have made a modeller for povray. (3)
45. You often debug your povray code using the text message streams. (1)
46. You can easyly calculate the camera parameters when you want to put a
    box right in front of the camera so that it completely and exactly fills
    the viewing area. (1)
47. You scored in each one of the previous allegations. (10)


-- 
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

Nieminen Mika wrote:
> 
>   The hardcore povrayer test.
> 
>   Read the allegations below. For each allegation that is true in your
> case, you receive the amount of points in parentheses at the end of the
> line. The maximum point amount is 78. Please be honest.
>   My personal score is 22.

  I scored 20 but I think many of your questions are too programmer specific
to accurately describe a "hard core" program user.

 A good question that you missed is:
Can you name without looking every pattern type available, know what the
pattern should look like, and how to implement it without referring to the
docs.


-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

On 14 Jun 1999 08:34:17 -0400, Nieminen Mika wrote:

>13. Your patch is included in the superpatch or at least it's popular. (2)

How about "Your patch is the superpatch?"

I only scored 39, but you needed more techie stuff and less rote 
memorization.  Also, while I understand the illumination curves,
I don't use them to choose a light source, so I didn't get those
points.

Here are some statements you may feel free to add if you'd like.
I'd say you should make scoring easier by making it like the 
canonical purity test - every question's a point, even the ones 
that aren't very likely.

These are knowledge only someone who knows the source would have:
- You know which .c and .h files you must change to add a keyword to 
  the parser.
- You can add a keyword and get it right the first time.
- You know which .c file contains the functionality for each aspect of
  the renderer.
- You can find a bug in the renderer given just a description of the
  symptoms and without using a debugger.

These are things everyone can find out easily but only the truly
hardcore will know:
- You know BOTH reasons why a mesh can't be used in CSG.
- You know that 'merge' doesn't have to be a primitive CSG operation 
  and can recite the equivalent sequence of intersections, unions, and 
  inverses.
- You know that 'difference' isn't a primitive CSG operation and you
  know how POV represents one internally.
- You understand how 'bounded_by' _really_ works.
- You know that a height_field has an inside and how it is defined.

These are accomplishment-oriented, but more realistic than "You could 
do anything Chris Colefax can do" :
- You've written your own include file and distributed it on the net.
- Your include file used one or more of the following: macros, arrays,
  vector algebra (vnormalize, vdot, vcross)
- You understand all the options to 'media' without having to look in 
  the manual.

These are self-referential, like your last question:
- You didn't know the answer to one of the above questions so you tried
  to find it in the manual.
- You didn't know the answer to one of the above questions so you tried
  to find it in the source code. 
- You didn't know that 'merge' wasn't a primitive but now that you do
  you have worked it out for yourself.

Post a reply to this message

Well, I got 21 which I consider pretty good, since I'm not a programmer.
A few comments:

>5. You have made big triangle meshes by hand. (1)
Yes, but not in POV. In POV I sometimes generate them. Entering vertex
coordinates by hand wouldn't be difficult, just pointless, IMO

>10. You have made a program which outputs a df3 file and used it in a
>    scene. (1)
Yes, but I doubt many others have. There's no need - such a program can be
d/l-ed


>19. You know what does 'sturm' mean and how it's calculated. (2)
I know what it means. Knowing the exact method is of little importance in
POVing

>22. You have found the 'average normal bug' by yourself in a povray version
>    previous than 3.1e. (1)
No, but I noticed the double illumination bug. I know the average normal bug
was your pet peeve :)

>25. You only use the png format when working with povray. (1)
How does that evaluate to 'hardcore'? It's just more compact than TGA etc

>31. You have set up emacs with povray enhancements (like automatic
indentation
>    and syntax highlighting) by yourself. (1)
Emacs? What's emacs? Where can I find it under the Start menu? <g>

>43. You never get the "camera is inside non-hollow object" warning. If you
>    ever get it, it's absolutely intentional. (1)
Or absolutely unimportant

Margus

Post a reply to this message

Ron Parker wrote in message <376509ce@news.povray.org>...
>
>>13. Your patch is included in the superpatch or at least it's popular. (2)
>
>How about "Your patch is the superpatch?"
>


At least it's popular :)

I don't really agree that one has to be a C programmer to be a "hardcore
POVer"
That's a disputable matter, of course. And I don't feel like disputing right
now.

Margus

Post a reply to this message

Margus Ramst wrote:

> Emacs? What's emacs? Where can I find it under the Start menu? <g>

Under Programs > Gnu Emacs > Emacs, obviously!
The Win32 port is actually very nicely done.  Particularly, M-x doctor comes in
very handy for those annoying POV problems.. A transcript of an anonymous user's
session is as follows:
>I can't get my media to show up!
>>Why do you say you cannot get your media to show up?
>Because it isn't in the output image!
>>Is it because it is not in the output image that you came to me?
>Yes.
>>I see...  Well, what makes you believe this is so?
>I've put in the media statement, all according to the docs, but nothing shows
up!
>>Does it bother you that nothing shows up?
>Yes.  It also bothers me that it complains about non-hollow objects..
>>When did you first know that it complains about non hollow objects?
>Oh!  Wow!  Thanks!  I hadn't realized that the camera was in a non-hollow
object!
>>Is the fact that the camera was in a non hollow object the real reason?
>Yeah!  It works now!
>>Earlier you said it is not in the output image?
.
.
.
-Alex V.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 17:45:19 +0300, Margus Ramst wrote:
>I don't really agree that one has to be a C programmer to be a "hardcore
>POVer"

I agree, in principle.  But you have to admit that someone who has
added their own keywords certainly qualifies as hardcore.  So I 
guess it's sufficient but not necessary.  Note, though, that most
of the assertions I suggested have little or nothing to do with 
programming.

By the same token, the original purity test has lots of questions
about illegal drug use.  Those of who might normally score low
on that test can't because they have at least a little respect for 
the law and/or their bodies.  Is that fair?  Probably not.  But it's
their test, and they can put whatever they want on it.

I guess I don't have room to argue, since I hold the record score 
so far anyway. I thought of another assertion, though: "You're on 
the POV-Team."  Most of those folks can't get the patching points, 
but they should get lots of points for giving us official versions.

Post a reply to this message

Got a score of 9. I'm an underscore povrayer !
G.


Nieminen Mika wrote:

>   The hardcore povrayer test.
>
>   Read the allegations below. For each allegation that is true in your
> case, you receive the amount of points in parentheses at the end of the
> line. The maximum point amount is 78. Please be honest.
>   My personal score is 22.
>

Post a reply to this message

Heh-heh, little side note here: I once wanted to start using 'gloss' and 'gloss_used'
instead of 'phong' and 'phong_size' so I hacked at the code simply replacing those
words. Biggest mistake I ever made when I realized I couldn't redefine them to be
compatible with other script files. I only used POV-Ray this way a very short while
and
I almost never got back on track again. So a bit of friendly advice here, only "add"
keywords, don't replace them. Oh, and Nieminen M., scanning over that "test" leads me
to
believe I better not even try to see what I'd score, I hate failure.


Ron Parker wrote:
> 
> But you have to admit that someone who has
> added their own keywords certainly qualifies as hardcore.  So I
> guess it's sufficient but not necessary.  Note, though, that most
> of the assertions I suggested have little or nothing to do with
> programming.
> 

-- 
 omniVERSE: beyond the universe
  http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
 mailto://inversez@aol.com?Subject=PoV-News

Post a reply to this message

Alex Vandiver wrote in message <37651C47.231A621E@tiac.net>...
>
>Under Programs > Gnu Emacs > Emacs, obviously!

Yeah, OK, I was afraid somebody would point this out. But my actual point
here was that POVWin (and POVMac?) users don't need to configure Emacs to
have syntax highlighting et al.


>>>Does it bother you that nothing shows up?


Argh! It's questions like these that remind me why I despise M$
troubleshooters :)

Margus

Post a reply to this message

Ron Parker wrote in message <37651db3@news.povray.org>...
>
>I agree, in principle.  But you have to admit that someone who has
>added their own keywords certainly qualifies as hardcore.  So I
>guess it's sufficient but not necessary.

I cannot argue with this. However, in my mind the ability to overcome
certain limitations with nothing but innovative POV code has equal value.
Not only does that require inventiveness, but also great expertise with the
program at hand.

>By the same token, the original purity test has lots of questions
>about illegal drug use.  Those of who might normally score low
>on that test can't because they have at least a little respect for
>the law and/or their bodies.  Is that fair?  Probably not.  But it's
>their test, and they can put whatever they want on it.
>


I am by no means questioning the freedom of the test maker. But if you wish
to compile a test that gives objective results, that's damn difficult. I
know by personal experience.

Margus

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 21:03:59 +0300, Margus Ramst wrote:
>Ron Parker wrote in message <37651db3@news.povray.org>...
>>
>>I agree, in principle.  But you have to admit that someone who has
>>added their own keywords certainly qualifies as hardcore.  So I
>>guess it's sufficient but not necessary.
>
>I cannot argue with this. However, in my mind the ability to overcome
>certain limitations with nothing but innovative POV code has equal value.
>Not only does that require inventiveness, but also great expertise with the
>program at hand.

Indeed.  I tend to try to avoid patching the source as much as possible, 
too, believe it or not, if I think the current solution is adequate.  For
example, I saw no need for a keyword to auto-tile a texture by flipping
it on all axes when we already had a perfectly serviceable repeat warp.
Then there's that "hexagon-shaped tiles" thread from a while back, and
the perennial "object oriented POV script" thread.  And one I haven't 
weighed in on and will probably catch some flak over... I see no need 
for a replacement for #declare and #local -- If you don't like the extra 
verbiage, write a preprocessor.  I probably wouldn't even have added
the #spline code to the superpatch if I hadn't had the explicit goal of
adding ALL available patches (which I haven't achieved and probably
never will.)

But there are some things you just can't do with POV script, and being 
able to add them to the renderer, or at least understand why that can 
or can't be done (as, for example, you and Ken seem to) is a valuable 
skill for any truly hardcore POV user.

Post a reply to this message

Nieminen Mika wrote:
> 
>   The hardcore povrayer test.
> 
>   Read the allegations below. For each allegation that is true in your
> 
...
> --
> 

How about softcore one? E.g. one can count, to how many VFAQ questions
he/she can answer?
I don't dare to take this test, as I am afraid that I get negative
result, as I did with IQ test... 
Oh, smiley too ;-)

Post a reply to this message

I scored 0, or at least I expected to after question #20 or so.

I guess I must never show my face here again (so to speak).

Ciao!

Remco

Post a reply to this message

i got many of them but not the cammera in non hollow object hehehe :) but i
wouldn't say i'm hard core and adding a key word isn't that big of a deal really

Nieminen Mika wrote:

>   The hardcore povrayer test.
>
>   Read the allegations below. For each allegation that is true in your
> case, you receive the amount of points in parentheses at the end of the
> line. The maximum point amount is 78. Please be honest.
>   My personal score is 22.
>
> 1. You have participated in the IRTC and got to the top 20 best images. (2)
> 2. You have won a price in the IRTC. (3)
> 3. You have made bicubic patches by hand (and they worked as you expected). (2)
> 4. You have made a program which outputs bicubic patches. (1)
> 5. You have made big triangle meshes by hand. (1)
> 6. You have used a poly object bigger than 4th degree. (1)
> 7. You have calculated the polynomial for that poly object by yourself
>    (instead of just trying random values). (2)
> 8. You know the format of a PCM file. (1)
> 9. You have made one by hand. (1)
> 10. You have made a program which outputs a df3 file and used it in a
>     scene. (1)
> 11. You know what a df3 file is. (1)
> 12. You have made a patch for povray. (3)
> 13. Your patch is included in the superpatch or at least it's popular. (2)
> 14. Your patch will probably be included in povray 3.5. (2)
> 15. You have made a popular tool for povray. (2)
> 16. You have used every object type, every camera type, every light source
>     type, every media type, etc. and know how to use them. (2)
> 17. You remember the terms of the torus-shaped quartic so that you could
>     type the polynomial at any time. (2)
> 18. You understand perfectly the table at page 212 of the povray 3.1 manual
>     and use it to create your poly objects. (2)
> 19. You know what does 'sturm' mean and how it's calculated. (2)
> 20. The intensity multiplier curves and light fading functions in the light
>     source section in the povray manual are very clear and you understand
>     them perfectly and you actually use them to choose your light source
>     types. (2)
> 21. You understand how photon mapping works (at algorithm level). (1)
> 22. You have found the 'average normal bug' by yourself in a povray version
>     previous than 3.1e. (1)
> 23. You know exactly what was causing it. (2)
> 24. You never include the povray include libraries (like colors.inc) because
>     they slow parsing, but always define your colors, textures, etc by
>     yourself. (1)
> 25. You only use the png format when working with povray. (1)
> 26. You always use it with alpha channel. (1)
> 27. It's very easy to you to make slope maps and actually you often use
>     them to make your textures. (1)
> 28. You know what the 'use_index' keyword is used for without looking at
>     the manual. (1)
> 29. You understand the matrix transformation and you can write them by
>     hand. (2)
> 30. You know how to calculate the matrix from any number of consecutive
>     transformations (translate, scale, rotate). (1)
> 31. You have set up emacs with povray enhancements (like automatic indentation
>     and syntax highlighting) by yourself. (1)
> 32. You can list all the povray reserved keywords without looking at the
>     manual. (2)
> 33. You could make all the Chris Colefax's includes and macros by yourself
>     if you wanted. (3)
> 34. You use frequency, phase, octaves, omega and lambda without problems
>     when creating your own textures. (1)
> 35. You can tell what does each one of them do (without looking at the
>     documentation). (1)
> 36. You understand the scattering function pictures in the media section of
>     the documentation. (1)
> 37. You remember all the keywords that can be put in a global_settings
>     block. (1)
> 38. You know what does they mean and how to use them. (1)
> 39. Making good-looking radiosity images is not a problem to you. (1)
> 40. You remember all the built-in float and vector identifiers. (1)
> 41. You use all the vector and string functions without problem. (1)
> 42. Macros, arrays and file-IO directives are a piece of cake. (1)
> 43. You never get the "camera is inside non-hollow object" warning. If you
>     ever get it, it's absolutely intentional. (1)
> 44. You have made a modeller for povray. (3)
> 45. You often debug your povray code using the text message streams. (1)
> 46. You can easyly calculate the camera parameters when you want to put a
>     box right in front of the camera so that it completely and exactly fills
>     the viewing area. (1)
> 47. You scored in each one of the previous allegations. (10)
>
> --
> 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

Ron Parker wrote:
> 
> the perennial "object oriented POV script" thread.  And one I haven't
> weighed in on and will probably catch some flak over... I see no need
> for a replacement for #declare and #local -- If you don't like the extra
> verbiage, write a preprocessor.

But I'll change it if I want to!  :-)  hehehe.  Of course, I'll have to
release a second fix for it before I finally get it working correctly,
but that's only becuase I'm still learning how the tokenizer works and
I messed things up a bit with my original implementation.

-Nathan

Post a reply to this message

Margus Ramst <mar### [at] peakeduee> wrote:
: Entering vertex
: coordinates by hand wouldn't be difficult, just pointless, IMO

  Not pointless. I have done this by myself. Since I don't have any modeller
in which I could model triangle meshes, I often make my models on paper and
then enter the triangle coordinates by hand. I can't think of any other
way of doing it.

:>19. You know what does 'sturm' mean and how it's calculated. (2)
: I know what it means. Knowing the exact method is of little importance in
: POVing

  Yeah, but if you know it, it makes you a little bit 'hardcore povrayer' :)
  The user doesn't need to know, for example, how smooth triangles, bicubic
pathces or quartics work to just use povray, but if you know how they work,
you know what's happening when they don't work as you expected.
  For example, it's possible that you know why sometimes you get black dots
in a bicubic patch.

:>43. You never get the "camera is inside non-hollow object" warning. If you
:>    ever get it, it's absolutely intentional. (1)
: Or absolutely unimportant

  If don't care about that kind of warnings, then you can't consider yourself
a hardcore povrayer ;)

-- 
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

Nieminen Mika wrote:
> 
> Margus Ramst <mar### [at] peakeduee> wrote:
> : Entering vertex
> : coordinates by hand wouldn't be difficult, just pointless, IMO
> 
>   Not pointless. I have done this by myself. Since I don't have any modeller
> in which I could model triangle meshes, I often make my models on paper and
> then enter the triangle coordinates by hand. I can't think of any other
> way of doing it.
> 
> :>19. You know what does 'sturm' mean and how it's calculated. (2)
> : I know what it means. Knowing the exact method is of little importance in
> : POVing
> 
>   Yeah, but if you know it, it makes you a little bit 'hardcore povrayer' :)
>   The user doesn't need to know, for example, how smooth triangles, bicubic
> pathces or quartics work to just use povray, but if you know how they work,
> you know what's happening when they don't work as you expected.
>   For example, it's possible that you know why sometimes you get black dots
> in a bicubic patch.
> 
> :>43. You never get the "camera is inside non-hollow object" warning. If you
> :>    ever get it, it's absolutely intentional. (1)
> : Or absolutely unimportant
> 
>   If don't care about that kind of warnings, then you can't consider yourself
> a hardcore povrayer ;)
> 
> --
> main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
> ):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

  I have done so and would not undertake the task again unless the need were
very, very, great. Even though I have done so my largest hand coded mesh
object was minuscule in comparison to what most computer generated mesh
utilities output in quantity.



-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

I added Ron's suggestions. Thanks Ron.
  I also corrected the allegation 20. You got a point.
  I still think that the allegations should score 1 to 3 points. I think
it's much more notorious to be able to code all the Colefax's includes than
just know the format of a df3 file.
  The scores are my personal estimations. If you disagree on some of them
(too low or too high), I'll be glad to listen.
  With this new test my personal score is now 25. (The new questions start
from question 47, if you want to make the test again.)

1. You have participated in the IRTC and got to the top 20 best images. (2)
2. You have won a price in the IRTC. (3)
3. You have made bicubic patches by hand (and they worked as you expected). (2)
4. You have made a program which outputs bicubic patches. (1)
5. You have made big triangle meshes by hand. (1)
6. You have used a poly object bigger than 4th degree. (1)
7. You have calculated the polynomial for that poly object by yourself
   (instead of just trying random values). (2)
8. You know the format of a PCM file. (1)
9. You have made one by hand. (1)
10. You have made a program which outputs a df3 file and used it in a
    scene. (1)
11. You know what a df3 file is. (1)
12. You have made a patch for povray. (3)
13. Your patch is included in the superpatch or at least it's popular. (2)
14. Your patch will probably be included in povray 3.5. (2)
15. You have made a popular tool for povray. (2)
16. You have used every object type, every camera type, every light source
    type, every media type, etc. and know how to use them. (2)
17. You remember the terms of the torus-shaped quartic so that you could
    type the polynomial at any time. (2)
18. You understand perfectly the table at page 212 of the povray 3.1 manual
    and use it to create your poly objects. (2)
19. You know what does 'sturm' mean and how it's calculated. (2)
20. The intensity multiplier curves and light fading functions in the light
    source section of the povray manual are very clear and you understand
    them perfectly (and you might use them to choose your light source
    types). (1)
21. You understand how photon mapping works (at algorithm level). (1)
22. You have found the 'average normal bug' by yourself in a povray version
    previous than 3.1e. (1)
23. You know exactly what was causing it. (2)
24. You never include the povray include libraries (like colors.inc) because
    they slow parsing, but always define your colors, textures, etc by
    yourself. (1)
25. You only use the png format when working with povray. (1)
26. You always use it with alpha channel. (1)
27. It's very easy to you to make slope maps and actually you often use
    them to make your textures. (1)
28. You know what the 'use_index' keyword is used for without looking at
    the manual. (1)
29. You understand the matrix transformation and you can write them by
    hand. (2)
30. You know how to calculate the matrix from any number of consecutive
    transformations (translate, scale, rotate). (1)
31. You have set up emacs with povray enhancements (like automatic indentation
    and syntax highlighting) by yourself. (1)
32. You can list all the povray reserved keywords without looking at the
    manual. (2)
33. You could make all the Chris Colefax's includes and macros by yourself
    if you wanted. (3)
34. You use frequency, phase, octaves, omega and lambda without problems
    when creating your own textures. (1)
35. You can tell what does each one of them do (without looking at the
    documentation). (1)
36. You understand the scattering function pictures in the media section of
    the documentation. (1)
37. You remember all the keywords that can be put in a global_settings
    block. (1)
38. You know what does they mean and how to use them. (1)
39. Making good-looking radiosity images is not a problem to you. (1)
40. You remember all the built-in float and vector identifiers. (1)
41. You use all the vector and string functions without problem. (1)
42. Macros, arrays and file-IO directives are a piece of cake. (1)
43. You never get the "camera is inside non-hollow object" warning. If you
    ever get it, it's absolutely intentional. (1)
44. You have made a modeller for povray. (3)
45. You often debug your povray code using the text message streams. (1)
46. You can easyly calculate the camera parameters when you want to put a
    box right in front of the camera so that it completely and exactly fills
    the viewing area. (1)
47. You know which .c and .h files you must change to add a keyword to
    the parser. (1)
48. You can add a keyword and get it right the first time. (2)
49. You know which .c file contains the functionality for each aspect of
    the renderer. (1)
50. You can find a bug in the renderer source code given just a description
    of the symptoms and without using a debugger. (2)
51. You know BOTH reasons why a mesh can't be used in CSG. (1)
52. You know that 'merge' doesn't have to be a primitive CSG operation
    and can recite the equivalent sequence of intersections, unions, and
    inverses. (1)
53. You know that 'difference' isn't a primitive CSG operation and you
    know how POV represents one internally. (1)
54. You understand how 'bounded_by' _really_ works. (1)
55. You know that a height_field has an inside and how it is defined. (1)
56. You've written your own include file and distributed it on the net. (1)
57. Your include file used one or more of the following: macros, arrays,
    vector algebra (vnormalize, vdot, vcross) (1)
58. You understand all the options to 'media' without having to look in
    the manual. (1)
59. You scored in each one of the previous allegations. (10)
60. You didn't know the answer to one of the above questions so you tried
    to find it in the manual. (1)
61. You didn't know the answer to one of the above questions so you tried
    to find it in the source code. (1)
62. You didn't know that 'merge' wasn't a primitive but now that you do
    you have worked it out for yourself. (1)
63. You are one of the POV-Team. (3)



-- 
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

Nieminen Mika wrote in message <3765ed7e@news.povray.org>...
<snip test>

Got 5. Only 'cause I studied Computer graphics last year.
Guess I need to spend more time reading the docs.

Is there anyone else who thinks the 3.0 docs were better than
the 3.1 docs?

Gail
*******************************************************************
* gsh### [at] monotixcoza              * ERROR: COFFEE.COM not found  *
* http://www.rucus.ru.ac.za/~gail/ * Insert cup and press any key *
*******************************************************************
   My Software never has bugs, It just develops random features
*******************************************************************

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:
> Is there anyone else who thinks the 3.0 docs were better than the 3.1 docs?
Yes

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:
> 
> Nieminen Mika wrote in message <3765ed7e@news.povray.org>...
> <snip test>
> 
> Got 5. Only 'cause I studied Computer graphics last year.
> Guess I need to spend more time reading the docs.
> 
> Is there anyone else who thinks the 3.0 docs were better than
> the 3.1 docs?
> 

Yes.

Marc
-- 
Marc Schimmler

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 15 Jun 1999 08:38:35 +0200, "Gail Shaw" <gsh### [at] monotixcoza> wrote:

>Is there anyone else who thinks the 3.0 docs were better than
>the 3.1 docs?

  Hi, Gail, Ken, and Marc. Where do the v3.0 docs do better compared with
the v3.1 docs? Is this the docs in general or a specific format (.html,
.pdf, Word, etc.)?

-- 
Alan
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.povray.org - Home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer
news.povray.org - where POV-Ray enthusiasts around the world can get
together to exchange ideas, information, and experiences with others
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Post a reply to this message

Alan Kong wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 15 Jun 1999 08:38:35 +0200, "Gail Shaw" <gsh### [at] monotixcoza> wrote:
> 
> >Is there anyone else who thinks the 3.0 docs were better than
> >the 3.1 docs?
> 
>   Hi, Gail, Ken, and Marc. Where do the v3.0 docs do better compared with
> the v3.1 docs? Is this the docs in general or a specific format (.html,
> .pdf, Word, etc.)?
> 
> --
> Alan
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.povray.org - Home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer
> news.povray.org - where POV-Ray enthusiasts around the world can get
> together to exchange ideas, information, and experiences with others
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

 The content appears to be the same only the format has changed. I believe
we discussed this in .general a while back didn't we ?

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

Nieminen Mika wrote in message <3765e751@news.povray.org>...
>
>  Not pointless. I have done this by myself. Since I don't have any
modeller
>in which I could model triangle meshes, I often make my models on paper and
>then enter the triangle coordinates by hand. I can't think of any other
>way of doing it.
>

Well, since I do have a mesh modeller, I can't really bring myself to
messing with vertex coords. Besides, a truly hardcore POVer would hardly
ever need triangle meshes. CSG, people! :)

>  If don't care about that kind of warnings, then you can't consider
yourself
>a hardcore povrayer ;)
>


I blatantly ignore all "non-hollow object", "scaled by 0" etc warnings,
because I know when they don't affect me. 'hollow' is such a long word to
type :)

Margus

Post a reply to this message

Margus Ramst wrote:
> 
> Nieminen Mika wrote in message <3765e751@news.povray.org>...
> >
> >  Not pointless. I have done this by myself. Since I don't have any
> modeller
> >in which I could model triangle meshes, I often make my models on paper and
> >then enter the triangle coordinates by hand. I can't think of any other
> >way of doing it.
> >
> 
> Well, since I do have a mesh modeller, I can't really bring myself to
> messing with vertex coords. Besides, a truly hardcore POVer would hardly
> ever need triangle meshes. CSG, people! :)

> Margus

  I'll post an image in the images group that I would like to hear how you
would csg a similar shape or I would like to hear your concession that
modelling it with triangles was the logical choice. Bear in mind when
you view the image the object pictured was constructed for Pov v2.2 quite
some time ago and was never really meant for public display.

I will post it under the thread title of "Triangles for Estonia" :-)

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

I have 56 now, but of course I knew all of the ones I added,
with the exception of all the media keywords.  And since I
knew them, I didn't get the last three (not counting the 
POV-Team one.)

Post a reply to this message

Ron Parker wrote:
> 
> I have 56 now, but of course I knew all of the ones I added,
> with the exception of all the media keywords.  And since I
> knew them, I didn't get the last three (not counting the
> POV-Team one.)

  Your so smart and handsome your my hero !

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 15 Jun 1999 06:07:17 -0700, Ken wrote:
>Ron Parker wrote:
>> 
>> I have 56 now, but of course I knew all of the ones I added,
>> with the exception of all the media keywords.  And since I
>> knew them, I didn't get the last three (not counting the
>> POV-Team one.)
>
>  Your so smart and handsome your my hero !

Gosh, Ken, I feel all warm and fuzzy inside now.

Post a reply to this message

>>   Hi, Gail, Ken, and Marc. Where do the v3.0 docs do better compared with
>> the v3.1 docs? Is this the docs in general or a specific format (.html,
>> .pdf, Word, etc.)?
>>


Nothing to do with format. I personally found that the pov 3.0 docs had more
info on the structure of the language, examples, comments on effects of
options and pictures showing effect of values. This would be especially
useful re interior and media.

Although I did prefer the docs in one long file, made reading for interest
easier.

Gail
*******************************************************************
* gsh### [at] monotixcoza              * ERROR: COFFEE.COM not found  *
* http://www.rucus.ru.ac.za/~gail/ * Insert cup and press any key *
*******************************************************************
   My Software never has bugs, It just develops random features
*******************************************************************

Post a reply to this message

er....hehe - i got 7
heheheh
;)

Nieminen Mika wrote:
> 
>   The hardcore povrayer test.
> 
>   Read the allegations below. For each allegation that is true in your
> case, you receive the amount of points in parentheses at the end of the
> line. The maximum point amount is 78. Please be honest.
>   My personal score is 22.
> 
> 1. You have participated in the IRTC and got to the top 20 best images. (2)
> 2. You have won a price in the IRTC. (3)
> 3. You have made bicubic patches by hand (and they worked as you expected). (2)
> 4. You have made a program which outputs bicubic patches. (1)
> 5. You have made big triangle meshes by hand. (1)
> 6. You have used a poly object bigger than 4th degree. (1)
> 7. You have calculated the polynomial for that poly object by yourself
>    (instead of just trying random values). (2)
> 8. You know the format of a PCM file. (1)
> 9. You have made one by hand. (1)
> 10. You have made a program which outputs a df3 file and used it in a
>     scene. (1)
> 11. You know what a df3 file is. (1)
> 12. You have made a patch for povray. (3)
> 13. Your patch is included in the superpatch or at least it's popular. (2)
> 14. Your patch will probably be included in povray 3.5. (2)
> 15. You have made a popular tool for povray. (2)
> 16. You have used every object type, every camera type, every light source
>     type, every media type, etc. and know how to use them. (2)
> 17. You remember the terms of the torus-shaped quartic so that you could
>     type the polynomial at any time. (2)
> 18. You understand perfectly the table at page 212 of the povray 3.1 manual
>     and use it to create your poly objects. (2)
> 19. You know what does 'sturm' mean and how it's calculated. (2)
> 20. The intensity multiplier curves and light fading functions in the light
>     source section in the povray manual are very clear and you understand
>     them perfectly and you actually use them to choose your light source
>     types. (2)
> 21. You understand how photon mapping works (at algorithm level). (1)
> 22. You have found the 'average normal bug' by yourself in a povray version
>     previous than 3.1e. (1)
> 23. You know exactly what was causing it. (2)
> 24. You never include the povray include libraries (like colors.inc) because
>     they slow parsing, but always define your colors, textures, etc by
>     yourself. (1)
> 25. You only use the png format when working with povray. (1)
> 26. You always use it with alpha channel. (1)
> 27. It's very easy to you to make slope maps and actually you often use
>     them to make your textures. (1)
> 28. You know what the 'use_index' keyword is used for without looking at
>     the manual. (1)
> 29. You understand the matrix transformation and you can write them by
>     hand. (2)
> 30. You know how to calculate the matrix from any number of consecutive
>     transformations (translate, scale, rotate). (1)
> 31. You have set up emacs with povray enhancements (like automatic indentation
>     and syntax highlighting) by yourself. (1)
> 32. You can list all the povray reserved keywords without looking at the
>     manual. (2)
> 33. You could make all the Chris Colefax's includes and macros by yourself
>     if you wanted. (3)
> 34. You use frequency, phase, octaves, omega and lambda without problems
>     when creating your own textures. (1)
> 35. You can tell what does each one of them do (without looking at the
>     documentation). (1)
> 36. You understand the scattering function pictures in the media section of
>     the documentation. (1)
> 37. You remember all the keywords that can be put in a global_settings
>     block. (1)
> 38. You know what does they mean and how to use them. (1)
> 39. Making good-looking radiosity images is not a problem to you. (1)
> 40. You remember all the built-in float and vector identifiers. (1)
> 41. You use all the vector and string functions without problem. (1)
> 42. Macros, arrays and file-IO directives are a piece of cake. (1)
> 43. You never get the "camera is inside non-hollow object" warning. If you
>     ever get it, it's absolutely intentional. (1)
> 44. You have made a modeller for povray. (3)
> 45. You often debug your povray code using the text message streams. (1)
> 46. You can easyly calculate the camera parameters when you want to put a
>     box right in front of the camera so that it completely and exactly fills
>     the viewing area. (1)
> 47. You scored in each one of the previous allegations. (10)
> 
> --
> 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

Ah! Finally, a challenge!
Of course, the object is so obviously composed of triangular elements that
asking for any concession is unfair :) And I did say you _hardly ever_ need
it.
Anyway, I accept. Just give me sec, I'll go find my math brain...

Margus

Ken wrote in message <37663D0A.FA8AEA8D@pacbell.net>...
>
>  I'll post an image in the images group that I would like to hear how you
>would csg a similar shape or I would like to hear your concession that
>modelling it with triangles was the logical choice. Bear in mind when
>you view the image the object pictured was constructed for Pov v2.2 quite
>some time ago and was never really meant for public display.
>
>I will post it under the thread title of "Triangles for Estonia" :-)
>
>--
>Ken Tyler
>
>mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 15 Jun 1999 04:22:08 -0700, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:

> The content appears to be the same only the format has changed. I believe
>we discussed this in .general a while back didn't we ?

  We discussed the way we could no longer traverse the entire docs by paging
down continuously. Just wanted to hear if there was something else that was
lacking...

-- 
Alan
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.povray.org - Home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer
news.povray.org - where POV-Ray enthusiasts around the world can get
together to exchange ideas, information, and experiences with others
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 15 Jun 1999 15:25:01 +0200, "Gail Shaw" <gsh### [at] monotixcoza> wrote:

>Nothing to do with format. I personally found that the pov 3.0 docs had more
>info on the structure of the language, examples, comments on effects of
>options and pictures showing effect of values.

  I will have to take your word on this as I have only the current docs on
my present system. I *thought* it migrated into its present form mostly
unchanged, though, save for halo/media and any additional features over
v3.0.

>Although I did prefer the docs in one long file, made reading for interest
>easier.

  Ken and I also like to be able to do this. I use the Adobe Acrobat version
of the docs. I am able read the entire document from beginning to end (if I
wish) and it retains all section numbers and demo images. The entire
document can be searched for specific keywords and phrases, also, something
that might be difficult to accomplish in some of the other formats.

-- 
Alan
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.povray.org - Home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer
news.povray.org - where POV-Ray enthusiasts around the world can get
together to exchange ideas, information, and experiences with others
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Post a reply to this message

I think you have the highest score right now.

  Can't anyone beat him?-)

-- 
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

Hmm, I'm suddenly up to 30. Thanks for the right questions, Ron :)

Margus

Post a reply to this message

Margus Ramst wrote:
> 
> Hmm, I'm suddenly up to 30. Thanks for the right questions, Ron :)
> 
> Margus

 I just retried the test and now score 27 (maybe 29 with doubt)

  I think question 62 is invalid by reason of it's wording. Csg's are not
primitives and are regarded as operations.

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 05:40:00 -0700, Ken wrote:
>  I think question 62 is invalid by reason of it's wording. Csg's are not
>primitives and are regarded as operations.

I'm using primitive in a different sense than you are.  There
are five CSG operations, counting inverse, but only three of 
them are primitive operations (as the term is used in Forth
programming) The other two can be expressed in terms of the 
three primitives, and one actually is expressed that way in 
the source.

Post a reply to this message

Nieminen Mika wrote:
> 
>   I think you have the highest score right now.
> 
>   Can't anyone beat him?-)

Don't look at me.  I got a 45 (if I added those correctly).

-Nathan

Post a reply to this message

25 points here.

Mark

Post a reply to this message

>I'm using primitive in a different sense than you are.  There
>are five CSG operations, counting inverse, but only three of
>them are primitive operations (as the term is used in Forth
>programming) The other two can be expressed in terms of the
>three primitives, and one actually is expressed that way in
>the source.

I know that difference is actually the intersection with the inverse.

Am I on the right track with merge ?

merge {
 object1
 object2
}

==

union {
 intersection {
   object1
   object2 inverse
  }
  intersection {
    object2
    object1 inverse
  }
}

Gail
*******************************************************************
* gsh### [at] monotixcoza              * ERROR: COFFEE.COM not found  *
* http://www.rucus.ru.ac.za/~gail/ * Insert cup and press any key *
*******************************************************************
   My Software never has bugs, It just develops random features
*******************************************************************

Post a reply to this message

>  I will have to take your word on this as I have only the current docs on
>my present system. I *thought* it migrated into its present form mostly
>unchanged, though, save for halo/media and any additional features over
>v3.0.


I've also only got the current docs now. That was my impression first time
I read the 3.1 docs. I read the section on radiosity yesterday. I'm fairly
sure
that the 3.0 docs had more than two pages on radiosity.

>  Ken and I also like to be able to do this. I use the Adobe Acrobat
version
>of the docs. I am able read the entire document from beginning to end (if I
>wish) and it retains all section numbers and demo images. The entire
>document can be searched for specific keywords and phrases, also, something
>that might be difficult to accomplish in some of the other formats.
>

Is the pdf for 3.1 at www.povray.org ? If not where?

Gail
*******************************************************************
* gsh### [at] monotixcoza              * ERROR: COFFEE.COM not found  *
* http://www.rucus.ru.ac.za/~gail/ * Insert cup and press any key *
*******************************************************************
   My Software never has bugs, It just develops random features
*******************************************************************

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 17 Jun 1999 08:48:42 +0200, "Gail Shaw" <gsh### [at] monotixcoza> wrote:

>Is the pdf for 3.1 at www.povray.org ? If not where?

  Yes, you can find it at:

http://www.povray.org/ftp/pub/povray/Official/Docs/povuser.pdf

-- 
Alan
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.povray.org - Home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer
news.povray.org - where POV-Ray enthusiasts around the world can get
together to exchange ideas, information, and experiences with others
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 17 Jun 1999 08:40:24 +0200, Gail Shaw wrote:
>
>>I'm using primitive in a different sense than you are.  There
>>are five CSG operations, counting inverse, but only three of
>>them are primitive operations (as the term is used in Forth
>>programming) The other two can be expressed in terms of the
>>three primitives, and one actually is expressed that way in
>>the source.
>
>I know that difference is actually the intersection with the inverse.
>
>Am I on the right track with merge ?

I think yours is an exclusive-or.  Here's what I came up with:

intersection {
  object {foo inverse}
  object {bar inverse}
  inverse
}

On the plus side, you get the points for wondering how it was done,
whether or not you actually got it. :)

Post a reply to this message

Alan Kong wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 15 Jun 1999 08:38:35 +0200, "Gail Shaw" <gsh### [at] monotixcoza> wrote:
> 
> >Is there anyone else who thinks the 3.0 docs were better than
> >the 3.1 docs?
> 
>   Hi, Gail, Ken, and Marc. Where do the v3.0 docs do better compared with
> the v3.1 docs? Is this the docs in general or a specific format (.html,
> .pdf, Word, etc.)?
> 
> --

Sorry for not answering that fast I have been busy the last days.
I would copy what Ken and Gail have said. What I have to add is that I
found the language declaration at the language description more
irritating than helping. I printed out both manuals and when I started
to do the 3.1 stuff I first tried to do it with these declarations at
the beginning of each section and really disliked them. They way the
language has been presented in the 3.0 docs I personally found much
easier (and that only a matter of the format).


All the Best,

Marc
-- 
Marc Schimmler

Post a reply to this message

What about the one that says you only use PNG format or the one that says you
always use the alpha channel?  I hardly ever 'always' do something in POV.  I
use colors.inc as a time saver, but by no means need to do so.

Then there was the one about making a patch for POV-Ray.  I made that one
patch a few months ago with changes to fix the problems with radiosity.
Later there were bug fixes made in those areas in the official version, but
I'm sure they handled it different, but I did point out the areas where the
problem lie.  Does that count?  Do I care?  I dunno, maybe.

Perhaps I'm just a casual user with hardcore tendencies. :)

-Mike

Ken wrote:

> Margus Ramst wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, I'm suddenly up to 30. Thanks for the right questions, Ron :)
> >
> > Margus
>
>  I just retried the test and now score 27 (maybe 29 with doubt)
>
>   I think question 62 is invalid by reason of it's wording. Csg's are not
> primitives and are regarded as operations.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 17 Jun 1999 16:57:28 +0200, Marc Schimmler
<sch### [at] icauni-stuttgartde> wrote:

>I printed out both manuals and when I started
>to do the 3.1 stuff I first tried to do it with these declarations at
>the beginning of each section and really disliked them. They way the
>language has been presented in the 3.0 docs I personally found much
>easier...

  I can't remember what the differences are. I will check some CD-ROMs for
the v3.0 docs as I don't have them on my system any longer. If you can
recall offhand without having to turn it into a research project what are
some sections from the older doc that I can compare with v3.1 version
(dependent on whether I can find the older version laying around)?

> ...(and that only a matter of the format).

  Do you mean the doc's file format (.html, .pdf, Word, Windows Help) or
something else? I just want to make sure I'm on the same wavelength as
everyone else <s>.

-- 
Alan
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.povray.org - Home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer
news.povray.org - where POV-Ray enthusiasts around the world can get
together to exchange ideas, information, and experiences with others
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Post a reply to this message

Lewis wrote:
>er....hehe - i got 7
>heheheh
>;)

Me too...

I've got a lot of "I think I know it but I'm not 100% sure so it doesn't
count" :-)

Greetings,

Rune S. Johansen

---
Visit The RSJ Website at http://welcome.to/rsj
for 3D images including still lives, dragons,
mathematical shapes, and more. Stereograms,
tutorials, The POV Desktop Theme, all the jokes
"you know you have been raytracing too long when",
miscellaneous other things, and a lot of fun!

Post a reply to this message

Alan Kong wrote:
> 
> 
>   I can't remember what the differences are. I will check some CD-ROMs for
> the v3.0 docs as I don't have them on my system any longer. If you can
> recall offhand without having to turn it into a research project what are
> some sections from the older doc that I can compare with v3.1 version
> (dependent on whether I can find the older version laying around)?
> 

For that I have to be at home where I can give you the sections.


> > ...(and that only a matter of the format).
> 
>   Do you mean the doc's file format (.html, .pdf, Word, Windows Help) or
> something else? I just want to make sure I'm on the same wavelength as
> everyone else <s>.
> 

Not the file format but the style actually. I know that it is typical
for programming language descriptions to describe the syntax in the way
it is done in the 3.1 docs. I tried to use it for a fast reference even
with parts from the 3.0 version I had forgotten (shame on me) but found
them not usable for me. Maybe you could add a small section that
explains how to understand them (or have I overseen such a part ... ?).

All the Best,

Marc
-- 
Marc Schimmler

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 17 Jun 1999 10:04:29 -0500, Mike <Ama### [at] aolcom> wrote:

>Then there was the one about making a patch for POV-Ray.  I made that one
>patch a few months ago with changes to fix the problems with radiosity.
>Later there were bug fixes made in those areas in the official version, but
>I'm sure they handled it different, but I did point out the areas where the
>problem lie.  Does that count?  Do I care?  I dunno, maybe.

Does the "hardcore povrayer test" count for much? Should we care? 

I think it makes for some interesting trivia, but shouldn't be thought
of as some sort of important judgement on any POV-User's worth or
merit as an artist, craftsman, or human being.

Later,
Glen Berry

Post a reply to this message