|
 |
Hi, (nice forest macro, by the way..it looks great)
I intend no offense to the TC-RTC, and wish to avoid tertiary debate, but I
do feel the need to state you made a very good case for the re-animation of
the IRTC:
>People are just pretending that the TC-RTC doesn't exist.
That is a big problem. If people will not use something for any number of
reasons it should/must be replaced.
I didn't even know the TC-RTC existed, its bookmarked now, but the above
point is still very valid.
Additionally:
>What problem are we trying to address that the TC-RTC does not? You can
>certainly argue that the TC-RTC is a step backwards from the IRTC in some
>ways
There are many RTCs out there, I guess its just a matter of exposure, niche
and user preference.
Perhaps the TC-RTC is a step back, I don't know. I'll trust you there.
In the end, since we *can* ressurect the IRTC with improvements, and people
*would* use it and *do* want it back ....I say, why not?
:-D
However I guess you could put a poll on the povray and/or irtc homepage.
Ian
"William Tracy" <wtr### [at] calpoly edu> wrote in message
news:47aff755$1@news.povray.org...
> [GDS|Entropy] wrote:
>> So whats next? :-)
>
> If I may...
>
> What problem are we trying to address that the TC-RTC does not? You can
> certainly argue that the TC-RTC is a step backwards from the IRTC in some
> ways--but I don't see anyone arguing that. People are just pretending that
> the TC-RTC doesn't exist.
>
> Is the problem that the TC-RTC has a name that starts with TC instead of
> I?
>
> --
> William Tracy
> afi### [at] gmail com -- wtr### [at] calpoly edu
>
> There are no problems which cannot be solved by judicious use of high
> explosives.
> -- British commando, circa WWII
Post a reply to this message
|
 |