There's gotta be a better way to NURBS into POV! This is just conversion 
to smooth triangles. Check out the edges of the shadow.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (0 KB) Download 'cracked.jpg' (39 KB) Download 'us-ascii' (1 KB)

Preview of image 'cracked.jpg'

David Curtis wrote:
> Check out the edges of the shadow.

...not so smooth, right?

Which tool did you use?

Karl

Post a reply to this message

Karl Pelzer <Kar### [at] t-onlinede> wrote in message
news:38C12E17.471ACCC2@t-online.de...
> David Curtis wrote:
> > Check out the edges of the shadow.
>
> ...not so smooth, right?

Right.

> Which tool did you use?

The object was created in Rhino and exported to POV as smooth triangles.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 11:32:37 -0500 "David Curtis" <spa### [at] junkmailcom>
wrote:

>The object was created in Rhino and exported to POV as smooth triangles.

  When exporting from Rhino, can the smoothing be user-adjusted?

-- 
Alan - ako### [at] povrayorg - a k o n g <at> p o v r a y <dot> o r g
http://www.povray.org - Home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer

Post a reply to this message

Hi David, indeed hi all as this is only my first proper post.

I've found that this works best if, in Rhino, you mesh each polysurface
individually using the 'Mesh' tool, rather than saving all NURBS to a POV
file with the default settings.
Also, when meshing, use the 'Detailed Controls' and play about with the
settings.  For best results, reduce the 'Max Angle' setting to an
appropriate value (this is the angle that the NURBS surface must sweep
through before a new facet is created and as you can imagine, the default
value of 20 is a bit 'dirty' and would only split a circle into an 18 sided
polygon).


Hope that helps :)

Damian

PS, Nice image :)

Post a reply to this message

Damian Ridgley <dri### [at] wildeandpartnerscouk> wrote in message
news:38c3bb7c@news.povray.org...
> Hi David, indeed hi all as this is only my first proper post.
>
> I've found that this works best if, in Rhino, you mesh each polysurface
> individually using the 'Mesh' tool, rather than saving all NURBS to a POV
> file with the default settings.
> Also, when meshing, use the 'Detailed Controls' and play about with the
> settings.  For best results, reduce the 'Max Angle' setting to an
> appropriate value (this is the angle that the NURBS surface must sweep
> through before a new facet is created and as you can imagine, the default
> value of 20 is a bit 'dirty' and would only split a circle into an 18
sided
> polygon).
>
Damian, Thanks for your help. It seems that surface seams are the worst.

What I'd really like to see is a NURBS primitive in POV. Anybody else? There
seems to be a lot of resistance to the idea, but I don't understand why. So
old-schoolers with their hand-written code won't have any use for it, but
who cares? If they don't want it they don't have to use it. I'm not asking
anybody to program the code for the primitive, I'll do it myself. Hopefully
others would be interested enough to help.

Dave.
mic### [at] sympaticoca

Post a reply to this message

In article <38c3dad0$1@news.povray.org>, "David Curtis" 
<spa### [at] junkmailcom> wrote:

> What I'd really like to see is a NURBS primitive in POV. Anybody else? 
> There seems to be a lot of resistance to the idea, but I don't 
> understand why.

I think you misunderstand things. There isn't resistance to the idea of 
adding a NURBS primitive to POV, just disinterest in going through the 
work of coding and designing for a feature which is unuseable without a 
modeller and which most people don't feel they need, and which many see 
as being a modeller feature and not a renderer feature.
If you write a patch which adds a NURBS primitive, it will probably get 
put into MegaPOV as soon as possible, but there won't be any people 
using it until someone writes either a converter or a modeller which can 
export to it. And until there are those tools, it almost definitely 
won't get in the official version.(unless you write it so it can be 
edited by hand)


> So old-schoolers with their hand-written code won't have any use for 
> it, but who cares? If they don't want it they don't have to use it. 

You imply that the people who hand code are stuck at a lower level and 
are "behind the times". This simply isn't true. Most of the patch 
writers are hand coders. Just testing the thing would be difficult 
without any hand-editable test data.
Since there are already meshes and bezier patches, the only real reason 
to add a NURBS primative would be adaptive subdivision. I think there 
would be more interest in adding subdivision capabilities to meshes than 
to adding a NURBS object.


> I'm not asking anybody to program the code for the primitive, I'll do 
> it myself. 

Then go ahead, nobody said anything about not adding an existing patch. 
Unwillingness to volunteer time and energy to add a feature one sees as 
useless to oneself and the majority of users does not equal resistance 
to the idea of adding the feature.

-- 
Chris Huff
e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/

Post a reply to this message

Chris Huff <chr### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:chrishuff_99-2DA3AC.13124906032000@news.povray.org...
> > So old-schoolers with their hand-written code won't have any use for
> > it, but who cares? If they don't want it they don't have to use it.
>
> You imply that the people who hand code are stuck at a lower level and
> are "behind the times".

No, I wouldn't imply that. I'm a hand coder myself. The 'old-schoolers' bit
wasn't necessary. Sorry.


Dave.
mic### [at] sympaticoca

Post a reply to this message