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