"triple_r" <nomail@nomail> schreef in bericht 
news:web.4a97a78b70f146db958421d50@news.povray.org...
> Sorry.  This one's much more interesting.  Again, just a box and plane, no 
> image
> maps, and one pass.
>

Hmmm.... no sphere then... where does it come from?

Nice conundrum....

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

triple_r wrote:
> I don't think I need to tell you that it's, of course, one pass with only a
> plane and a box.  Certainly no image maps.

  Hey, the sphere is not reflective!

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot schrieb:
> Hmmm.... no sphere then... where does it come from?
> 
> Nice conundrum....

As much as I do highly respect people who can pull off such tricks: I 
suspect they want to waste my time...

... they must be knowing that I just can't go past a good puzzle :-P

If only I had /any/ substantial idea... if I can't sleep tonight it's 
Ricky's fault :-)

Post a reply to this message

> I don't think I need to tell you that it's, of course, one pass with only a
> plane and a box.  Certainly no image maps.
> 

   Raytracing with SDL? ...at least this is what suggests the image name.


--
Jaime

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 07:24:47 -0400, SharkD <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

>clipka wrote:
>> triple_r schrieb:
>>> Sorry.  This one's much more interesting.  Again, just a box and 
>>> plane, no image
>>> maps, and one pass.
>> 
>> You mean, there /is/ no spoon... um, I mean, sphere?!
>
>We're supposed to guess............ I guess. !!??
>

Something, someone said in the Matrix I, II or III ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
>    Raytracing with SDL? ...at least this is what suggests the image name.

Yep.  It's just a simple raytracer, written with POV-Ray functions.  The box
just has a function for the pigment.  The second one just has the exact same
viewpoint and ambient 1 for the trompe l'oeil effect.  I got sick of it before
implementing reflections...

The motivation was the talk of parallax-mapping, which got me wondering to what
extent POV-Ray functions could be used, well, for raytracing.  I still think
with some iterative method that parallax-mapping could be achieved, only I
don't think it would be efficient by the time it's done.

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> If only I had /any/ substantial idea... if I can't sleep tonight it's
> Ricky's fault :-)

Sorry to keep you up, but we all have to sleep sometime, so the delay was my
chance!

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:

> > I don't think I need to tell you that it's, of course, one pass with only a
> > plane and a box.  Certainly no image maps.
> >
>
>    Raytracing with SDL? ...at least this is what suggests the image name.

Quite right. Interesting. That was quicker than the others, ergo I intuit that
you've discovered the quintessential human delusion, whereby I entered the
matrix--er, function, and...  uh... apropos?  Darn.  I'm kinda running out of
steam here...

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

triple_r wrote:
> Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
>> triple_r escribi�:
>>> I don't think I need to tell you that it's, of course, one pass with only a
>>> plane and a box.  Certainly no image maps.
>>>
>>    Raytracing with SDL? ...at least this is what suggests the image name.
> 
> Quite right. Interesting. That was quicker than the others, ergo I intuit that
> you've discovered the quintessential human delusion, whereby I entered the
> matrix--er, function, and...  uh... apropos?  Darn.  I'm kinda running out of
> steam here...
> 
>  - Ricky
> 

Then you should have said, "one pass with only a plane and a box, _and a 
raytracer written in SDL_." :)

-Mike

Post a reply to this message

triple_r wrote:
> Oops.  I didn't add the attachment.

It took me a minute, but now I see the box :)

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message