"Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote in message
news:418a7044$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
> >   - so that someone could make a good robot, a good car,
> > a good house,  castle, whatever, in PoV if they want. I
> > think that would be one way forward. Thoughts?
>
> My entry was hand-coded.

     I know it was. ;)  I bet you haven't touched a modeler for,
ooooh, sometime now? The thing is Shay, I can't see any other way
forwards than to use a modeler if you want a complete <and fairly
realistic> scene. If you've achieved this, then I can't wait to see
your submission. You know, everyone screams that Wings is good, (and
it is), but it can be equally as hard as PoV itself in the frustration
camp. As David Bowie once sang; "It ain't eeeasy..."   ;)

    ~Steve~


>
>   -Shay

St. wrote:
> I bet you haven't touched a modeler for, ooooh, sometime now?

How about never? :) I did play with Rhino and Wings for a couple of 
evenings, but never actually modeled anything.

> The thing is Shay, I can't see any other way forwards than to
> use a modeler if you want a complete <and fairly realistic>
> scene.

I can't afford the RAM to make a scene as "complete" as many of those in 
the links with *any* tool, especially poster sized, but my image was not 
  abstract, a mathematical figure, or a procedural landscape. Probably 
thousands of lines of code. In a few evenings (*if* I had the RAM), I 
could add a few trees, flags, or whatever filler I wanted and have the 
frame completely packed with details.

> If you've achieved this, then I can't wait to see
> your submission.

Not sure if I'll leave it up. I haven't canceled it yet. I'll probably 
decide something on Jan 31. I'm just flat out of resources. I could doll 
it up a *bit* over the next three months, but it would still be a 
two-month scene, and no small part of that two months was spent on 
resource management already. Sort of bringing a knife to a gun fight, 
and I don't want to submit anything to which I would feel any desire to 
attach an excuse.

  -Shay

"Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote in message
news:418a902a$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
> > I bet you haven't touched a modeler for, ooooh, sometime now?
>
> How about never? :) I did play with Rhino and Wings for a couple of
> evenings, but never actually modeled anything.

    Well, at least you know what's involved with these modelers. I
tried Rhino, and didn't know what I was looking at. :/


>
> > The thing is Shay, I can't see any other way forwards than to
> > use a modeler if you want a complete <and fairly realistic>
> > scene.
>
> I can't afford the RAM to make a scene as "complete" as many of
those in
> the links with *any* tool, especially poster sized, but my image was
not
>   abstract, a mathematical figure, or a procedural landscape.
Probably
> thousands of lines of code. In a few evenings (*if* I had the RAM),
I
> could add a few trees, flags, or whatever filler I wanted and have
the
> frame completely packed with details.

   But I'm the same with only 384Mb's of RAM. You really don't want to
know how many times Wings crashes on me with the models that I make.
In fact, I have Wings3d19, 22, 24, and 25 installed here, and the best
one for me is the '19' version. I think this is because from version
22 on, they used a progress bar, and *I* think this 'hassles' the
progress of modeling in this particular program, (any other Wingers
notice this?) Still, I will reset, and reboot as many times as I have
to, to get that object!  ;)


>
> > If you've achieved this, then I can't wait to see
> > your submission.
>
> Not sure if I'll leave it up. I haven't canceled it yet. I'll
probably
> decide something on Jan 31. I'm just flat out of resources. I could
doll
> it up a *bit* over the next three months, but it would still be a
> two-month scene, and no small part of that two months was spent on
> resource management already. Sort of bringing a knife to a gun
fight,
> and I don't want to submit anything to which I would feel any desire
to
> attach an excuse.

   Shay, don't worry about it. Leave it up, and/or improve it, (I
doubt it needs improving from what I've seen from you though).

  Good luck to you too.

   ~Steve~


>
>   -Shay

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>     Can I do what? Model something like Mr. Rosenman has? I really
> don't know if I can, I'm trying now, (and btw, when I saw his work, I
> was already modeling something similar, so I was quite shocked to see
> what he's done), and so far, so good, touch wood. But seriously,
> there's no way I could do it directly in PoV-Ray. How would someone
> make the folds in the skin? I've been using PoV for 5 years now, and
> soon learnt early on that translating and rotating was going to be my
> bugbear. I just couldn't do it. It seemed to take ages to move a box
> where I wanted it. Then I tried sPatch, then Wings, (and with Wings,
> you can build an entire scene on your screen if so desired - that's
> the bit I like), and haven't looked back since.
>

When I mentioned about brute force I don't just mean mindlessly putting a
million primitives together to get a ultra high quality model.  Like Gilles
says, use the right tool for the right thing.  I don't have to put
realistic people in my scene for it to be world-class, make use of things
that can be done in Povray and you could be surprised. Don't restrict
yourself to using a modeller because you need high quality models, just be
creative.

It appears to me that with today's CG standards most scenes with organic
models (human in particular) are deemed world-class (not saying that these
kind are the only world-class images).  People can make the most
photorealistic and detail human face but the artistic value is not really
there.  Perhaps my philosophy for cg is different.  I don't think a
world-class image is the direct result of merely using a tool to make
images that parallel other world-class images. A world-class image should
involve things that are unique, inspiring, something that others have not
tried before... and on top of the remaining artistic components. Povray can
do some amazing light effects, so can mental ray (I shouldn't make a
comparison since I haven't used it before). The tools are not really
different, but you, and I, and the way we perceive the world, are.

>      No no, don't take it like that. Keep up the good work! Nobody
> would be wasting their time developing a way of modeling directly in
> PoV if it's achievable. I say fair play to you if that's your goal. I
> don't know what you're doing, but to me, I would say that a massive
> library of different shapes 'could' be a good start - so that someone
> could make a good robot, a good car, a good house, castle, whatever,
> in PoV if they want. I think that would be one way forward. Thoughts?

I've done most of the modeling during the "first phase" of the competition,
so for the remaining month it's going to be improving everything. I am
trying to make my scene 100% povray, hopefully it will be unique.

>     Btw, sorry, I was in one of those moods again last night, and you
> don't want to know... <sigh>
>
>     Good luck to you.
>
>     ~Steve~

My apologies, I guess I was a bit upset but I can see that your intension is
good. Best of luck to you as well.

J

St. wrote:
> 
>    Shay, don't worry about it. Leave it up, and/or improve
>  it, (I doubt it needs improving from what I've seen from you
> though).

Thanks, but I did go ahead and withdraw it. Worked on it a bit last 
night, and my heart's just not in it anymore. Same with an aborted 
second entry. I'll mail it to you if you want to check it out. Figured 
I'd ask first, 'cause it's 1.6 megs.

<hold on>

Don't have your address handy. I remember the front, but can't remember 
the domain.

  -Shay

"Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote in message
news:418ba20f$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
> >
> >    Shay, don't worry about it. Leave it up, and/or improve
> >  it, (I doubt it needs improving from what I've seen from you
> > though).
>
> Thanks, but I did go ahead and withdraw it. Worked on it a bit last
> night, and my heart's just not in it anymore. Same with an aborted
> second entry. I'll mail it to you if you want to check it out.
Figured
> I'd ask first, 'cause it's 1.6 megs.
>
> <hold on>
>
> Don't have your address handy. I remember the front, but can't
remember
> the domain.

  Well, I've been really cheeky and sent you an email. Hope you don't
mind. Just reply Shay.

   Later mate.

    ~Steve~


>
>   -Shay

St. wrote:
> 
> Well, I've been really cheeky and sent you an email. Hope you don't
> mind. Just reply Shay.

That looks like a RAM *hawg*! The shapes look awesome, but on this 
monitor, every picture looks like a crappy render from 1995, or maybe 
something rendered with +Q1. I wish there were some way to take a screen 
shot of a crappy monitor picture, you'd probably get a laugh out of 
seeing your pic this way. I'm going to forward it home where I can see 
it and then I'll respond to the "crits welcome" part via email where I 
won't give anything away.

I'm off to find mine now. I'm sending it from my work address, so I 
won't get any email reply to that address until Monday.

  -Shay

"Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote in message
news:418bdd9b$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
> >
> > Well, I've been really cheeky and sent you an email. Hope you
don't
> > mind. Just reply Shay.
>
> That looks like a RAM *hawg*!

   Heh, well, close.  ;)

 The shapes look awesome, but on this
> monitor, every picture looks like a crappy render from 1995, or
maybe
> something rendered with +Q1.

 No, what you're seeing are 'some' models in the image *un-smoothed*.
At 800x600, you can't see this, or at least, *I* can't.

  That first image was rendered at bog-standard +a0.0


I wish there were some way to take a screen
> shot of a crappy monitor picture, you'd probably get a laugh out of
> seeing your pic this way.

   'Print Screen' on your keyboard? CTRL-V to any graphics app.


 I'm going to forward it home where I can see
> it and then I'll respond to the "crits welcome" part via email where
I
> won't give anything away.
>
> I'm off to find mine now. I'm sending it from my work address, so I
> won't get any email reply to that address until Monday.

   No probs, looking forward to seeing it Shay. :)

   OH man, just got it. I bow to you young Sir! I'll mail you Monday.

   ~Steve~


>
>   -Shay

While "The aim of POVCOMP 2004 is to show the full potential of POV-Ray", I
am disappointed that objects made in Povray are treated equally as objects
made with modellers on the assumptions that people will spend too much time
on modelling (thus neglecting other things) and models made in Povray won't
be good enough.  I don't object the use of modellers but this is not fair
to the contestants who will be able to deliver, on time, pov models that
are comparable to ones made with modeller. I don't see the point in
continuing as this a complete waste of my effort, I can better spend my
time on other more important matters.

J

St. wrote:

>>  The shapes look awesome, but on this monitor, every picture
>> looks like a crappy render from 1995, or maybe something
>> rendered with +Q1.

>  No, what you're seeing are 'some' models in the image *un-smoothed*.
> At 800x600, you can't see this, or at least, *I* can't.

ROFL. I think you misunderstood. When I said "on this monitor, every 
picture looks...", I meant *every* picture. The monitor is going out. 
It's got nothing to do with *your* pictures.

My Internet service was f'ed at home. The technician just left so I have 
just now gotten to see your pics on a working monitor. Looks great. I've 
got some ideas. I'll start typing an email now.

>> OH man, just got it. I bow to you young Sir!

lol

  -Shay