 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Maybe I'm missing something, but I feel POVRay would strongly need some
kind of "render" statement. Let me explain: with version 3.1, POV has
achieved the status of a nearly complete programming language. It has
its own cyles, conditional tests, macros etc. BUT we still have to make
animations by the quite primitive mathod of calling the program
repeatedly with different arguments: this means re-parsing every time
and no chance of doing a complex animation. I know, now POV can read and
write files, but using them to store temporary variable values seems to
me a bit dumb. What we really need is a siple "render" statement. e.g
#declare a_cross = union {
cylinder { <-1.5,0,0>, <1.5,0,0>, 0.3}
cylinder { <0,1.5,0>, <0,-1.5,0>, 0.3}
}
#macro DrawCross (rot,trans, colr)
object {a_cross
texture {pigment {color rgb colr}}
rotate rot translate trans
}
#end
#declare cycles=0;
#while (cycles<36)
DrawCross(<0,cycles*10,0>,<0,0,0>,<0,.8,.2>)
#declare cycles=cycles+1;
render <sort of a numbered-filename>//<- THIS IS THE NEW DIRECTIVE!
#end
The above code would render to a different file every time it comes upon
the "render" directive (36 times) from WITHIN the cycle, rather than at
the end of the complete parsing, thus outputting an animation. This way,
we could avoid working outside the POV program with limited .INI files
to achieve any kind of animation, at any level of complexity: particle
systems, mesh distortion/morphing ecc. POV would become the most
flexible 3D system in the world.
Am I wrong?
Could this be implemented via a patch (I don't think I have the skill to
do that)?
Please tell me your opinion!
Luca Rivelli <luk### [at] usa net>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Please explain how this would work. Wouldn't you end up with another object
being added to the scene each time through the loop.
Povray has no way to delete or modify an object once it is declared.
Gordon
Lukee wrote in message <3654A085.DEAC2E8C@altavista.net>...
>Maybe I'm missing something, but I feel POVRay would strongly need some
>kind of "render" statement. Let me explain: with version 3.1, POV has
>
>achieved the status of a nearly complete programming language. It has
>
>its own cyles, conditional tests, macros etc. BUT we still have to make
>
>animations by the quite primitive mathod of calling the program
>repeatedly with different arguments: this means re-parsing every time
>
>and no chance of doing a complex animation. I know, now POV can read and
>
>write files, but using them to store temporary variable values seems to
>
>me a bit dumb. What we really need is a siple "render" statement. e.g
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>#declare a_cross = union {
>
>
>
> cylinder { <-1.5,0,0>, <1.5,0,0>, 0.3}
>
> cylinder { <0,1.5,0>, <0,-1.5,0>, 0.3}
>
>
>
> }
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>#macro DrawCross (rot,trans, colr)
>
> object {a_cross
>
> texture {pigment {color rgb colr}}
>
> rotate rot translate trans
>
> }
>
>
>
>#end
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>#declare cycles=0;
>
>
>
>#while (cycles<36)
>
> DrawCross(<0,cycles*10,0>,<0,0,0>,<0,.8,.2>)
>
> #declare cycles=cycles+1;
>
>
>
> render <sort of a numbered-filename>//<- THIS IS THE NEW DIRECTIVE!
>
>
>
>#end
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>The above code would render to a different file every time it comes upon
>
>the "render" directive (36 times) from WITHIN the cycle, rather than at
>
>the end of the complete parsing, thus outputting an animation. This way,
>we could avoid working outside the POV program with limited .INI files
>to achieve any kind of animation, at any level of complexity: particle
>systems, mesh distortion/morphing ecc. POV would become the most
>flexible 3D system in the world.
>
>
>
>Am I wrong?
>
>
>
>Could this be implemented via a patch (I don't think I have the skill to
>
>do that)?
>
>
>
>Please tell me your opinion!
>
>
>
>Luca Rivelli <luk### [at] usanet>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Are you using the Windows Version?
If so, you can set up animations using the clock variable, and you can also
call an EXE during an animation loop.
Lukee wrote:
> Maybe I'm missing something, but I feel POVRay would strongly need some
> kind of "render" statement. Let me explain: with version 3.1, POV has
>
> achieved the status of a nearly complete programming language. It has
>
> its own cyles, conditional tests, macros etc. BUT we still have to make
>
> animations by the quite primitive mathod of calling the program
> repeatedly with different arguments: this means re-parsing every time
>
> and no chance of doing a complex animation. I know, now POV can read and
>
> write files, but using them to store temporary variable values seems to
>
> me a bit dumb. What we really need is a siple "render" statement. e.g
>
> #declare a_cross = union {
>
> cylinder { <-1.5,0,0>, <1.5,0,0>, 0.3}
>
> cylinder { <0,1.5,0>, <0,-1.5,0>, 0.3}
>
> }
>
> #macro DrawCross (rot,trans, colr)
>
> object {a_cross
>
> texture {pigment {color rgb colr}}
>
> rotate rot translate trans
>
> }
>
> #end
>
> #declare cycles=0;
>
> #while (cycles<36)
>
> DrawCross(<0,cycles*10,0>,<0,0,0>,<0,.8,.2>)
>
> #declare cycles=cycles+1;
>
> render <sort of a numbered-filename>//<- THIS IS THE NEW DIRECTIVE!
>
> #end
>
> The above code would render to a different file every time it comes upon
>
> the "render" directive (36 times) from WITHIN the cycle, rather than at
>
> the end of the complete parsing, thus outputting an animation. This way,
> we could avoid working outside the POV program with limited .INI files
> to achieve any kind of animation, at any level of complexity: particle
> systems, mesh distortion/morphing ecc. POV would become the most
> flexible 3D system in the world.
>
> Am I wrong?
>
> Could this be implemented via a patch (I don't think I have the skill to
>
> do that)?
>
> Please tell me your opinion!
>
> Luca Rivelli <luk### [at] usanet>
--
Bryan Valencia
Software Services
http://www.209software.com
mailto:bry### [at] 209softwarecom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi
i am familiar with the use of the clock variable for animation, but
would you please explain the advantages of calling an EXE during an
animation. how would it help?
thanks
Hassoun
Bryan Valencia wrote:
>
> Are you using the Windows Version?
>
> If so, you can set up animations using the clock variable, and you can also
> call an EXE during an animation loop.
>
> --
> Bryan Valencia
> Software Services
> http://www.209software.com
> mailto:bry### [at] 209softwarecom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Let's say you wrote an AI routine that made a ship attack targets or implemented
gravity or wind velocity.
You could call the exe repeatedly and it could store it's last state.
Hassoun wrote:
> Hi
> i am familiar with the use of the clock variable for animation, but
> would you please explain the advantages of calling an EXE during an
> animation. how would it help?
>
> thanks
> Hassoun
>
> Bryan Valencia wrote:
> >
> > Are you using the Windows Version?
> >
> > If so, you can set up animations using the clock variable, and you can also
> > call an EXE during an animation loop.
> >
>
> > --
> > Bryan Valencia
> > Software Services
> > http://www.209software.com
> > mailto:bry### [at] 209softwarecom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bryan Valencia wrote:
>
> Let's say you wrote an AI routine that made a ship attack targets or implemented
> gravity or wind velocity.
>
> You could call the exe repeatedly and it could store it's last state.
>
I would rather have the exe called outside of POV and store each result into
a distinct file (so that distributed rendering could be easy).
The filename could of course be based on the clock value and
the pov-scene would simply #include the one for the current clock.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
