 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Cason wrote:
> Before posting a feature or bug request, it might be useful to sound it out
> with other users first. This doesn't mean you have to run it by us, but
> getting other user's feedback can help improve the quality of the requests
> we get. This isn't a hard and fast rule, it's just a suggestion.
Would anyone apart from SharkD and myself like to see subdivision
surfaces added to 3.7? POV-Sub's implementation* was perfect and easy to
use. I replied to SharkD's feature request over at bugs.povray.org and
listed some reasons explaining the benefits of this feature:
http://bugs.povray.org/task/133?string=subdivision&project=2&type%5B0%5D=&sev%5B0%5D=&pri%5B0%5D=&due%5B0%5D=&reported%5B0%5D=&cat%5B0%5D=&status%5B0%5D=open&percent%5B0%5D=&opened=&dev=&closed=&duedatefrom=&duedateto=&changedfrom=&changedto=&openedfrom=&openedto=&closedfrom=&closedto=
* http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~xwu/Pov-Sub/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
stbenge <myu### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> Chris Cason wrote:
> > Before posting a feature or bug request, it might be useful to sound it out
> > with other users first. This doesn't mean you have to run it by us, but
> > getting other user's feedback can help improve the quality of the requests
> > we get. This isn't a hard and fast rule, it's just a suggestion.
>
> Would anyone apart from SharkD and myself like to see subdivision
> surfaces added to 3.7? POV-Sub's implementation* was perfect and easy to
> use. I replied to SharkD's feature request over at bugs.povray.org and
> listed some reasons explaining the benefits of this feature:
>
http://bugs.povray.org/task/133?string=subdivision&project=2&type%5B0%5D=&sev%5B0%5D=&pri%5B0%5D=&due%5B0%5D=&reporte
d%5B0%5D=&cat%5B0%5D=&status%5B0%5D=open&percent%5B0%5D=&opened=&dev=&closed=&duedatefrom=&duedateto=&changedfrom=&chan
gedto=&openedfrom=&openedto=&closedfrom=&closedto=
>
> * http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~xwu/Pov-Sub/
I certainly would. I used to use PovSub before 3.7, changing primarily because
of SMP and the radiosity improvements. I tend to use Wings3D a lot, so
subdivision is very handy for controlling the level of detail between renders
without having several copies of the same model.
-Reactor
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
stbenge <myu### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Chris Cason wrote:
> > Before posting a feature or bug request, it might be useful to sound it out
> > with other users first. This doesn't mean you have to run it by us, but
> > getting other user's feedback can help improve the quality of the requests
> > we get. This isn't a hard and fast rule, it's just a suggestion.
>
> Would anyone apart from SharkD and myself like to see subdivision
> surfaces added to 3.7? POV-Sub's implementation* was perfect and easy to
> use. I replied to SharkD's feature request over at bugs.povray.org and
> listed some reasons explaining the benefits of this feature:
>
http://bugs.povray.org/task/133?string=subdivision&project=2&type%5B0%5D=&sev%5B0%5D=&pri%5B0%5D=&due%5B0%5D=&reporte
d%5B0%5D=&cat%5B0%5D=&status%5B0%5D=open&percent%5B0%5D=&opened=&dev=&closed=&duedatefrom=&duedateto=&changedfrom=&chan
gedto=&openedfrom=&openedto=&closedfrom=&closedto=
>
> * http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~xwu/Pov-Sub/
who wouldn't like subsurfs in povray -- aside from isosurface and CSG nuts, that
is? Smaller mesh files, less hassle for exporters... I vote for it, sure.
Specially as pov-sub license make the expansion readily available to the
official pov-ray code.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 22.06.2010 20:17, schrieb stbenge:
> Would anyone apart from SharkD and myself like to see subdivision
> surfaces added to 3.7? POV-Sub's implementation* was perfect and easy to
> use. I replied to SharkD's feature request over at bugs.povray.org and
> listed some reasons explaining the benefits of this feature:
While I do agree that it seems to be an interesting feature, I don't
think that it can be considered just a very small change; plus, the
author's copyright statement seems to be problematic regarding the
current plans to move POV-Ray to a GPL licensing scheme.
All in all I don't see it making its way into the 3.7 release. Some
later version... maybe.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Am 22.06.2010 20:17, schrieb stbenge:
>
>> Would anyone apart from SharkD and myself like to see subdivision
>> surfaces added to 3.7? POV-Sub's implementation* was perfect and easy to
>> use. I replied to SharkD's feature request over at bugs.povray.org and
>> listed some reasons explaining the benefits of this feature:
>
> While I do agree that it seems to be an interesting feature, I don't
> think that it can be considered just a very small change; plus, the
> author's copyright statement seems to be problematic regarding the
> current plans to move POV-Ray to a GPL licensing scheme.
>
> All in all I don't see it making its way into the 3.7 release. Some
> later version... maybe.
Perhaps I will contact the authors about updating the patch for 3.7. Do
you foresee any major code changes which would keep the patch from
working with future versions? Could work start with the POV's source as
it is now? Of course the authors might not want to update their code,
but I can hope :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 22.06.2010 23:25, schrieb stbenge:
> Perhaps I will contact the authors about updating the patch for 3.7. Do
> you foresee any major code changes which would keep the patch from
> working with future versions? Could work start with the POV's source as
> it is now? Of course the authors might not want to update their code,
> but I can hope :)
From what I've seen, I guess it should fit quite snugly into 3.7 as
well - with some minor changes of course.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 22.06.2010 23:25, schrieb stbenge:
>
> > Perhaps I will contact the authors about updating the patch for 3.7. Do
> > you foresee any major code changes which would keep the patch from
> > working with future versions? Could work start with the POV's source as
> > it is now? Of course the authors might not want to update their code,
> > but I can hope :)
>
> From what I've seen, I guess it should fit quite snugly into 3.7 as
> well - with some minor changes of course.
That would be great! The current Blender exporter crashes over two subdivisions
of a
rather simple mesh... :(
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mr" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> > Am 22.06.2010 23:25, schrieb stbenge:
> >
> > > Perhaps I will contact the authors about updating the patch for 3.7. Do
> > > you foresee any major code changes which would keep the patch from
> > > working with future versions? Could work start with the POV's source as
> > > it is now? Of course the authors might not want to update their code,
> > > but I can hope :)
> >
> > From what I've seen, I guess it should fit quite snugly into 3.7 as
> > well - with some minor changes of course.
>
> That would be great! The current Blender exporter crashes over two subdivisions
> of a
> rather simple mesh... :(
In fact this has been solved in more recent builds!
now I can export my 5 times subdivided meshes or any modifier and Diffuse,
alpha, specular, bump texture from blender!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
