 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] monotix coza * 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
