 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Margus Ramst <mar### [at] peak eduee> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
