I had another weird idea:
Let's compile a library of trees, made with Giles macro. Using a macro
to generate random trees, each one starts it with a different seed and
sends in the results (the include files). It could be very useful. Maybe
someone will need a couple of trees sometime. Instead of parsing, say,
100ds of them, he will just download them.
Anyone with me? If there will be enough enthusiasm I'll set up a web
site or somethin'.

Post a reply to this message

I'd like to see all these tree and grass macros in one "vegetation.inc"

--
----------------------
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
--The Home Of Lunaland--
--visit my POV-Ray gallery--
--listen to my music--
www.acocker.freeserve.co.uk


Lewis <ble### [at] netvisionnetil> wrote in message
news:37163924.6C8A93DD@netvision.net.il...
> I had another weird idea:
> Let's compile a library of trees, made with Giles macro. Using a macro
> to generate random trees, each one starts it with a different seed and
> sends in the results (the include files). It could be very useful. Maybe
> someone will need a couple of trees sometime. Instead of parsing, say,
> 100ds of them, he will just download them.
> Anyone with me? If there will be enough enthusiasm I'll set up a web
> site or somethin'.

Post a reply to this message

I'm in, but don't have the macro.  Where can I get it?

Steve

Lewis wrote:
> 
> I had another weird idea:
> Let's compile a library of trees, made with Giles macro. Using a macro
> to generate random trees, each one starts it with a different seed and
> sends in the results (the include files). It could be very useful. Maybe
> someone will need a couple of trees sometime. Instead of parsing, say,
> 100ds of them, he will just download them.
> Anyone with me? If there will be enough enthusiasm I'll set up a web
> site or somethin'.

Post a reply to this message

Andy

That makes sense, and particularly if it's bundled with the next
or even the current official distribution of POV.

Steve

Andrew Cocker wrote:
> 
> I'd like to see all these tree and grass macros in one "vegetation.inc"
> 
> --
> ----------------------
> Andy
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> --The Home Of Lunaland--
> --visit my POV-Ray gallery--
> --listen to my music--
> www.acocker.freeserve.co.uk
> 
> Lewis <ble### [at] netvisionnetil> wrote in message
> news:37163924.6C8A93DD@netvision.net.il...
> > I had another weird idea:
> > Let's compile a library of trees, made with Giles macro. Using a macro
> > to generate random trees, each one starts it with a different seed and
> > sends in the results (the include files). It could be very useful. Maybe
> > someone will need a couple of trees sometime. Instead of parsing, say,
> > 100ds of them, he will just download them.
> > Anyone with me? If there will be enough enthusiasm I'll set up a web
> > site or somethin'.

Post a reply to this message

Steve <sjl### [at] ndirectcouk> wrote in message news:37167060.9D062CFD@ndirect.co.uk...
> Andy
>
> That makes sense, and particularly if it's bundled with the next
> or even the current official distribution of POV.
>
> Steve

Agreed. Someone mentioned recently that POV should be bundled with Colefax's includes
for
example. They're all tiny files, and would save a lot of searching for the newcomer.
In my
case, I had no idea that the lens flare includes were available until recently, and
since
then I have put his AutoClck.mcr file to much use.

Where are you Steve?

--
----------------------
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
--The Home Of Lunaland--
--visit my POV-Ray gallery--
--listen to my music--
www.acocker.freeserve.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

povray.binaries.utilities

Post a reply to this message

Well, this isn't what I thought it was going to be after all.
I've only messed with Sonya Roberts plant includes before. I've been
meaning to get back to some trees. Good luck with this idea, and yeah,
who *doesn't* think a lot of the wellknown and useful includes, macros,
etc, shouldn't be included. No one probably, so it must be a secret
password needed to add to the "official" distribution eh? :)


Lewis wrote:
> 
> I had another weird idea:
> Let's compile a library of trees, made with Giles macro. Using a macro
> to generate random trees, each one starts it with a different seed and
> sends in the results (the include files). It could be very useful. Maybe
> someone will need a couple of trees sometime. Instead of parsing, say,
> 100ds of them, he will just download them.
> Anyone with me? If there will be enough enthusiasm I'll set up a web
> site or somethin'.

-- 
 omniVERSE: beyond the universe
  http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
 mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?Subject=PoV-News

Post a reply to this message

Bob Hughes wrote:
> 
> Well, this isn't what I thought it was going to be after all.
> I've only messed with Sonya Roberts plant includes before. I've been
> meaning to get back to some trees. Good luck with this idea, and yeah,
> who *doesn't* think a lot of the wellknown and useful includes, macros,
> etc, shouldn't be included. No one probably, so it must be a secret
> password needed to add to the "official" distribution eh? :)

Don't even get me started...

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

hmm, this probably doesn't fit in this group, but should be in a separate mail
to Giles. but then, hehe.

To ease it all up with object placing and scalability, can you make the trees
all downscaled(upscaled) to a bounding_box{<0,0,0>,<10,10,10>}. This would help
a lot, and would also remove the need to recalculate the tree to fit.

I have an automated rescaler #macro here somewhere, if you are interested...



Lewis wrote:
> 
> I had another weird idea:
> Let's compile a library of trees, made with Giles macro. Using a macro
> to generate random trees, each one starts it with a different seed and
> sends in the results (the include files). It could be very useful. Maybe
> someone will need a couple of trees sometime. Instead of parsing, say,
> 100ds of them, he will just download them.
> Anyone with me? If there will be enough enthusiasm I'll set up a web
> site or somethin'.

-- 
//Spider
        [ spi### [at] bahnhofse ]-[ http://www.bahnhof.se/~spider/ ]
What I can do and what I could do, I just don't know anymore
                "Marian"
        By: "Sisters Of Mercy"

Post a reply to this message

Hmm. It could be useful in some cases, and a little cumbersome in others.
Personnally I prefer having the trees not scaled and adjust the size using the
dummy bounding box: for instance, if you generate several trees just but changing
the random seed or the recursion level, you'll get trees of different sizes but
with a similar scale. If the trees were post-scaled, you'd get even-sized trees but
with actually different scales, so you would have to make trial-and-error scaling
to have trees consistent with each other. There's also the fact that the trees
don't exactly fit in a box. Some of them crawl, some shoot up, so there's no ideal
unit-size bounding box. In fact people who provide really good 3D trees also
provide the "real life" bounding box : see http://iris8.cirad.fr/index.htm and look
at the plant catalogue.
Now if you really want it, I can add it as an option.
Gilles

Spider wrote:

> hmm, this probably doesn't fit in this group, but should be in a separate mail
> to Giles. but then, hehe.
>
> To ease it all up with object placing and scalability, can you make the trees
> all downscaled(upscaled) to a bounding_box{<0,0,0>,<10,10,10>}. This would help
> a lot, and would also remove the need to recalculate the tree to fit.
>
> I have an automated rescaler #macro here somewhere, if you are interested...
>
> Lewis wrote:
> >
> > I had another weird idea:
> > Let's compile a library of trees, made with Giles macro. Using a macro
> > to generate random trees, each one starts it with a different seed and
> > sends in the results (the include files). It could be very useful. Maybe
> > someone will need a couple of trees sometime. Instead of parsing, say,
> > 100ds of them, he will just download them.
> > Anyone with me? If there will be enough enthusiasm I'll set up a web
> > site or somethin'.
>
> --
> //Spider
>         [ spi### [at] bahnhofse ]-[ http://www.bahnhof.se/~spider/ ]
> What I can do and what I could do, I just don't know anymore
>                 "Marian"
>         By: "Sisters Of Mercy"

Post a reply to this message