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