 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Sep 1999 19:19:43 -0700, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbell net> wrote:
>What is a binary utility ?
>
> My own interpertation of this is an executable program that
>accomplishes a desired goal. However I see many people here
>post macro/include files to this group calling them utilities
>and there is a strong case for doing so. However a macro/include
>file is still just a form of POV-Ray scene file and might be
>better placed by definition in one of the scene-files groups.
>
>Was that confusing enough ?
I'm not confused. I agree with your definition that a binary utility is a
stand-alone, executable program as opposed to a POV-Ray macro or include
file that is parsed by the POV-Ray rendering engine.
Examples of binary utilities are John P. Beale's HFLab and GForge, and
Warp's Triangle Mesh Compressor.
Examples (excellent ones) of POV-Ray macros and include files are the city
generator, object bender, and spray files written by Chris Colefax. These
files are parsed just like POV-Ray's scene files and standard include files,
such as colors.inc and textures.inc.
Macros and include files are best suited for posting...
...in povray.text.scene-files, if the macro or include file is typed or
cut-and-pasted into the body of the message, or
...in povray.binaries.scene-files, if the macro or include file is in the
form of a message attachment such as a .pov or .inc file.
Hope this clarifies things for everyone. Comments, anyone? If so, address
them to Ken <big grin>.
--
Alan ---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.povray.org - Home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer
news.povray.org - where POV-Ray enthusiasts around the world can get
together to exchange ideas, information, and experiences with others
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It could be argued that macros and most include files are not scene-files, they
are utilities. I have always thought the .binaries part simply meant it is
appropriate to post attached/zipped macros here and pasted macros to...
povray.text.utilities? (I know it doesn't exist)
Margus
Alan Kong wrote:
>
> Macros and include files are best suited for posting...
>
> ...in povray.text.scene-files, if the macro or include file is typed or
> cut-and-pasted into the body of the message, or
>
> ...in povray.binaries.scene-files, if the macro or include file is in the
> form of a message attachment such as a .pov or .inc file.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Sep 1999 23:13:39 +0300, Margus Ramst <mar### [at] peakeduee> wrote:
>It could be argued that macros and most include files are not scene-files, they
>are utilities. I have always thought the .binaries part simply meant it is
>appropriate to post attached/zipped macros here and pasted macros to...
>povray.text.utilities? (I know it doesn't exist)
Hi, Margus. Okay, we've got three possible groups to post macros and
include files:
- povray.binaries.utilities
- povray.text.scene-files
- povray.binaries.scene-files
If macros and include files are compared with both third-party executable
programs and POV-Ray scene files, they are more clearly associated with the
scene files. This is the criteria on which I based my opinions. And it is
just an opinion - I don't foresee any sort of official policy towards this
end. It isn't really a problem. I was just thinking about where *I* would
look first for macros and include files that are posted in the groups.
--
Alan ---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.povray.org - Home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer
news.povray.org - where POV-Ray enthusiasts around the world can get
together to exchange ideas, information, and experiences with others
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alan Kong wrote:
> If macros and include files are compared with both third-party executable
> programs and POV-Ray scene files, they are more clearly associated with the
> scene files. This is the criteria on which I based my opinions. And it is
> just an opinion - I don't foresee any sort of official policy towards this
> end. It isn't really a problem. I was just thinking about where *I* would
> look first for macros and include files that are posted in the groups.
For what it is worth I agree 99%
--
Ken Tyler
See my 1000+ Povray and 3D Rendering and Raytracing Links at:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
You know, this makes me think the confusion might be the "scene" part
of the names for those two file groups p.b.s-f and p.t.s-f. A scene
is usually thought of as a Pov file, not even a Inc (certainly not any
Ini : ) files). Stop me if I'm being rhetorical... too late. A
"binary" ought to mean only that, end product being pre-coded. And
"text" is extremely obvious to me anyhow.
Far as utilities go, 'macro' or no, I'd say use the binary/text
decision process. I'd certainly expect to find those macros in either
place depending on that criteria.
Bob
Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
news:37E06B7D.70F381B2@pacbell.net...
>
>
> Alan Kong wrote:
>
> > If macros and include files are compared with both third-party
executable
> > programs and POV-Ray scene files, they are more clearly associated
with the
> > scene files. This is the criteria on which I based my opinions.
And it is
> > just an opinion - I don't foresee any sort of official policy
towards this
> > end. It isn't really a problem. I was just thinking about where
*I* would
> > look first for macros and include files that are posted in the
groups.
>
> For what it is worth I agree 99%
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> See my 1000+ Povray and 3D Rendering and Raytracing Links at:
> http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I for one would expect a file in one of the scene-files groups to be a
scene, i.e. you load it into POV-Ray and get a picture.
Cheers, PoD.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
My ideas:
1. Binaries isn't ALWAYS an executable program. It can be any file that
isn't text. That lovely swap file you have in your bloated Windows
directory (if you use Windows ;) is a binary. Why? Because it contains
non-text information.
If you download files off an FTP site using a low-level FTP browser (such as
the Windows FTP utility or a Unix terminal), you'll find two modes. ASCII
for text files, and binary for just about everything else. There's no real
specific definition of the word "binary".
2. The way I see it, there's p.t.s-f and p.b.s-f. The 's' stands for
"scene". Most people think of a scene as a complete image, not just a
utility. And an INC file is hardly a scene. It COULD realistically be
called a utility because it does things for people (which utilities
generally do)
There's my two cents :)
-Ian
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ian Burgmyer wrote in message <37e2e605@news.povray.org>...
>My ideas:
>2. The way I see it, there's p.t.s-f and p.b.s-f. The 's' stands for
>"scene". Most people think of a scene as a complete image, not just a
>utility. And an INC file is hardly a scene. It COULD realistically be
>called a utility because it does things for people (which utilities
>generally do)
Some of the INC files I've made, if rendered by themselves, will produce a
complete sample image.
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mark Wagner wrote:
>
> Ian Burgmyer wrote in message <37e2e605@news.povray.org>...
> >My ideas:
>
> >2. The way I see it, there's p.t.s-f and p.b.s-f. The 's' stands for
> >"scene". Most people think of a scene as a complete image, not just a
> >utility. And an INC file is hardly a scene. It COULD realistically be
> >called a utility because it does things for people (which utilities
> >generally do)
>
> Some of the INC files I've made, if rendered by themselves, will produce a
> complete sample image.
>
> Mark
I think if the scene files groups had instead been named
povray.text.povray-files
this confusion might have been avoided. I agree that the
words "scene-files" is a bit misleading when trying to
figure out where to place files that you are sharing.
--
Ken Tyler
See my 1000+ Povray and 3D Rendering and Raytracing Links at:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
True. However, most aren't all in one (like yours are, obviously). Most
include the INC and have instructions in the comment blocks. However, an
INC still does things for you, sample scene or not. It saves time and
effort, as well as lowers frustration, as you don't have to have a ton of
code in your POV file.
<picky>But having the INC render scenes increases parse time!</picky> Hehe.
Just kidding :)
-Ian
Mark Wagner <mar### [at] gtenet> wrote in message
news:37e3128a@news.povray.org...
> Some of the INC files I've made, if rendered by themselves, will produce a
> complete sample image.
>
> Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
