 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2002-01-19 22:04, Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trf de> wrote:
> I still hope to come up with a complete solution for beta 11, which
> will basically allow one order to fit all needs, which should be
> possible.
You probably know this and have only postponed adapting the docs until
you have a complete solution, so I'll just mention it here so that it
isn't forgotten:
The docs still claim that the camera type can appear anywhere in the
camera statement and that the order influences the result.
hp
--
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | Verstand, die Augen haben und nicht sehen,
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Jeremia 5:21
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> As said, the current change is not
> complete, it is a kind of a test to see how much trouble forcing the camera
> type as the first thing really causes.
Apparently : much !
> So input on the suggested order(s) is desired, all they need to be is
> deterministic.
What do you mean by "deterministic" ?
> As for the orthographic with angle issue, that is already covered and no new
> keyword is needed, as angle automatically suggests what should happen when
> it appears in an orthographic camera.
Sounds right.
Anyway, here's my suggestion for the order, if there must be an order :
camera {
Projection_Type
right <..>
up <..>
location <..>
look_at <..>
angle .. / direction ..
}
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fabien Mosen wrote:
> camera {
Ooops, forgot "sky" ! I'll put it just after "up".
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3C4### [at] skynetbe>,
Fabien Mosen <fab### [at] skynetbe> wrote:
> Basically, all that matters to me (and many others, I suppose) is
> having the ability to set the "automatic approximate orthographic"
> easily.
I didn't say the feature was bad, just the syntax for it. Orthographic
cameras don't have an angle.
> BTW, why was that change (being more strict about perspective type
> declaration) needed ?
My understanding is that the changes are to make the camera more
predictable, not to remove functionality (the old camera was chaos, the
options often interacted in unexpected ways). The changes are still in
progress, the new syntax isn't complete yet. This feature could
reappear, just with a more obvious name.
> And, given the number of potential broken scenes, isn't it more
> of a potential support problem than anything else ?
Not if it is easier to understand.
--
--
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <slr### [at] tealhhjpat>,
hjp### [at] hjpat (Peter J. Holzer) wrote:
> The view area is already given by the up and right vectors. Angle is a
> different thing - it's the angle under which the view area appears from
> a distance |direction| away. So I think "angle" is ok, even though an
> orthographic camera doesn't really have an angle.
The what? And the user is supposed to know this?
I'm only saying the keyword is wrong. It isn't the camera angle.
--
--
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3C4### [at] skynetbe> , Fabien Mosen
<fab### [at] skynetbe> wrote:
> Anyway, here's my suggestion for the order, if there must be an order
Based on what you write I am not sure you understood that there is no need
to have an order for the keywords, only an order in which they take effect.
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
in news:slr### [at] tealhhjpat Peter J. Holzer wrote:
> so I'll just mention it here so that it
> isn't forgotten:
>
> The docs still claim ..
It's not forgotten, I just wait and see what comes out of this before
making changes.
Ingo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
in news:3c4b2153@news.povray.org Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> only an order in which they take effect.
Do you mean something like:
Camera
Type
if perspective
(right, direction) or angle
sky
...
if orthographic
...
...
type independent identifiers
Ingo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christopher James Huff wrote:
> (the old camera was chaos, the
> options often interacted in unexpected ways)
I always thought that it was because the order directly influenced
the order of transformations of the camera ray. Isn't it ?
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> Based on what you write I am not sure you understood that there is no need
> to have an order for the keywords, only an order in which they take effect.
Oh, OK. Let me say :
1) projection mode
2) location and look_at
3) sky
4) right and up
5) angle or direction
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
