On 11/13/2016 8:07 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 13-11-2016 5:02, Sherry K. Shaw wrote:
>> Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>
>>> Ah! There it is! This has been indeed one of the major complaints:
>>> people (outside of POV-Ray) do not want to create using text editors
>>> (any more).
>>
>> I Do Not Fingerpaint.
>>
>> I Do Not Use Software That Expects Me To Fingerpaint.
>>
>> I Am A Grownup.  I Can Read And Write.  I Can Do Math.
>>
>> Reading And Writing And Math Are Accurate.  Fingerpainting Is Guesswork.
>>  I Like Accuracy.  I Do Not Like Guesswork.
>>
>> I Like Reading And Writing.  I Like Doing Math.  I Want To Read And
>> Write And Do Math.  I Do Not Want To Fingerpaint.
>>
>> And that's why I do POV-Ray.*  :)
>>
>> --Sherry Shaw
>>
>> * Oh, and also because it is awesome.
>>
>
> Absolutely! Although, me, I am not very good at math, so I mix POV-Ray
> with a bit of fingerpainting.
>
> [blush][small print] I like fingerpainting [/small print][/blush]
>

I'm too lazy to do the maths.
Splash a bit here smudge a bit there. That's the way to do it!

Does the kraken awake?
Because I think LanuHum is right.
<aside> I wonder what the average age of Pov-Ray users is. </aside>

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 13-11-2016 9:34, Stephen wrote:
> On 11/13/2016 8:07 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 13-11-2016 5:02, Sherry K. Shaw wrote:
>>> Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ah! There it is! This has been indeed one of the major complaints:
>>>> people (outside of POV-Ray) do not want to create using text editors
>>>> (any more).
>>>
>>> I Do Not Fingerpaint.
>>>
>>> I Do Not Use Software That Expects Me To Fingerpaint.
>>>
>>> I Am A Grownup.  I Can Read And Write.  I Can Do Math.
>>>
>>> Reading And Writing And Math Are Accurate.  Fingerpainting Is Guesswork.
>>>  I Like Accuracy.  I Do Not Like Guesswork.
>>>
>>> I Like Reading And Writing.  I Like Doing Math.  I Want To Read And
>>> Write And Do Math.  I Do Not Want To Fingerpaint.
>>>
>>> And that's why I do POV-Ray.*  :)
>>>
>>> --Sherry Shaw
>>>
>>> * Oh, and also because it is awesome.
>>>
>>
>> Absolutely! Although, me, I am not very good at math, so I mix POV-Ray
>> with a bit of fingerpainting.
>>
>> [blush][small print] I like fingerpainting [/small print][/blush]
>>
>
> I'm too lazy to do the maths.
> Splash a bit here smudge a bit there. That's the way to do it!
>
> Does the kraken awake?
> Because I think LanuHum is right.
> <aside> I wonder what the average age of Pov-Ray users is. </aside>

Age? well above average I am sure. So, what to do about it?

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 2016-11-13 3:37 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 13-11-2016 9:34, Stephen wrote:
>> On 11/13/2016 8:07 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> On 13-11-2016 5:02, Sherry K. Shaw wrote:
>>>> Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ah! There it is! This has been indeed one of the major complaints:
>>>>> people (outside of POV-Ray) do not want to create using text editors
>>>>> (any more).
>>>>
>>>> I Do Not Fingerpaint.
>>>>
>>>> I Do Not Use Software That Expects Me To Fingerpaint.
>>>>
>>>> I Am A Grownup.  I Can Read And Write.  I Can Do Math.
>>>>
>>>> Reading And Writing And Math Are Accurate.  Fingerpainting Is
>>>> Guesswork.
>>>>  I Like Accuracy.  I Do Not Like Guesswork.
>>>>
>>>> I Like Reading And Writing.  I Like Doing Math.  I Want To Read And
>>>> Write And Do Math.  I Do Not Want To Fingerpaint.
>>>>
>>>> And that's why I do POV-Ray.*  :)
>>>>
>>>> --Sherry Shaw
>>>>
>>>> * Oh, and also because it is awesome.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Absolutely! Although, me, I am not very good at math, so I mix POV-Ray
>>> with a bit of fingerpainting.
>>>
>>> [blush][small print] I like fingerpainting [/small print][/blush]
>>>
>>
>> I'm too lazy to do the maths.
>> Splash a bit here smudge a bit there. That's the way to do it!
>>
>> Does the kraken awake?
>> Because I think LanuHum is right.
>> <aside> I wonder what the average age of Pov-Ray users is. </aside>
>
> Age? well above average I am sure. So, what to do about it?
>

What POVRay needs is its own user interface tailored to POVRay. Other 
user interfaces tend to break the world into triangles which don't 
translate well to POVRay.  The POVRay text files are cumbersome because 
they are non-visual and they force you to constantly switch from text 
mode to render mode.

I would like to see a user interface that supports all of the POVRay 
primitives.  It would allow you select components of the scene with 
parameters that are alterable.  You don't necessarily need to see the 
text but rather a graphical representation of the text.  It would allow 
you to change any parameters and would re-render the scene automatically 
with those changes.  The rendering might be incremental - it renders in 
low resolution first and refines the image as you wait or renders 
without textures then with textures or it renders without reflections 
and later adds reflections - just some ideas.

I often find myself asking "What happens if I change this parameter?" 
To answer that I need to keep editing and rendering until I understand 
it.  I'd rather select the parameter in a UI and use the mouse to change 
the value and see in real time what it does to the image.

Thoughts?
David Buck

Post a reply to this message

On 13-11-2016 13:06, David Buck wrote:
> What POVRay needs is its own user interface tailored to POVRay. Other
> user interfaces tend to break the world into triangles which don't
> translate well to POVRay.  The POVRay text files are cumbersome because
> they are non-visual and they force you to constantly switch from text
> mode to render mode.
>
> I would like to see a user interface that supports all of the POVRay
> primitives.  It would allow you select components of the scene with
> parameters that are alterable.  You don't necessarily need to see the
> text but rather a graphical representation of the text.  It would allow
> you to change any parameters and would re-render the scene automatically
> with those changes.  The rendering might be incremental - it renders in
> low resolution first and refines the image as you wait or renders
> without textures then with textures or it renders without reflections
> and later adds reflections - just some ideas.
>
> I often find myself asking "What happens if I change this parameter?" To
> answer that I need to keep editing and rendering until I understand it.
> I'd rather select the parameter in a UI and use the mouse to change the
> value and see in real time what it does to the image.
>
> Thoughts?
> David Buck
>

Yes, I agree with that indeed. That could be something like an enhanced 
Moray, could it not? All the more reasons to have Moray dusted off I 
believe, but that involves (wo)manpower which I believe the pov-team 
lacks at the moment. In the meantime, we - as users - could seriously 
assess what exactly we want changed - in Moray, if that is the course to 
follow - or implemented in a brand-new interface.

[I think it might be time for me to take Moray down from the 'shelf of 
forlorn programs', and start playing again...]

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

in news:58285749$1@news.povray.org David Buck wrote:

> Thoughts?
> David Buck

Very often I wished for the opposite, different rendering backends to the 
POV-SDL. That could give a simmilar speed of development.

Modellers are nice for modeling, for putting together a complete scene I 
prefer scripts especialy when using procedural landscaping. I used to have 
a whole suite of small task oriented modelers, most have gone I think. 
Iirc the mac version had little tools like a spline editor. Those small 
things in an IDE would be nice, kind of the opposite of ALT-F3.

Yes, more "front end" would be usefull. Just look at how people work with 
trackers and sythesisers, nodes connected with wires and on the node you 
set some options.

Front ends could be scrips in all kind of languages that make it easy to 
get a visual result of a dataset. What I see is that often POV-SDL is 
"emulated" in python or Lua or something. Then you could just as well do 
it in POV-ray straight away.

A simple way to get motion sets into POV-ray would be nice. Or all this 
Iot data.

Ingo

Post a reply to this message

On 11/12/2016 11:02 PM, Sherry K. Shaw wrote:
> Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
>> Ah! There it is! This has been indeed one of the major complaints:
>> people (outside of POV-Ray) do not want to create using text editors
>> (any more).
>
> I Do Not Fingerpaint.

I do with my granddaughter :-)

... that's about it for my artistic abilities. I use modelers (blender) 
but I always do materials in povray. Blender is pretty good for cleaning 
up objects that I find here and there but I also objects purely in 
povray too. That said I hear what some of you are saying about the more 
artistic/paintbrush approach, well that's not for everyone but 
apparently some (probably a fair amount) but you know what that say ...

... pick your audience! I think there's far more scientific, and 
educational uses for povray, and it's IMHO povrays greatest strength. 
For example teaching high school geometry ... way more engaging than 
just books and boring lectures. A beginning programming class comes to 
mind a well!

Post a reply to this message

David Buck <dav### [at] simberoncom> wrote:
>
> What POVRay needs is its own user interface tailored to POVRay. Other
> user interfaces tend to break the world into triangles which don't
> translate well to POVRay.  The POVRay text files are cumbersome because
> they are non-visual and they force you to constantly switch from text
> mode to render mode.
>
> I would like to see a user interface that supports all of the POVRay
> primitives.  It would allow you select components of the scene with
> parameters that are alterable.  You don't necessarily need to see the
> text but rather a graphical representation of the text.  It would allow
> you to change any parameters and would re-render the scene automatically
> with those changes.  The rendering might be incremental - it renders in
> low resolution first and refines the image as you wait or renders
> without textures then with textures or it renders without reflections
> and later adds reflections - just some ideas.
>
> I often find myself asking "What happens if I change this parameter?"
> To answer that I need to keep editing and rendering until I understand
> it.  I'd rather select the parameter in a UI and use the mouse to change
> the value and see in real time what it does to the image.
>
> Thoughts?
> David Buck

Some years I post screenshots:
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3Cweb.5302425140bf5a347a3e03fe0%40news.povray.org%3E/?mtop=402018
&moff=109

http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3Cweb.56d33fab8302842a7a3e03fe0%40news.povray.org%3E/?mtop=407442

Post a reply to this message

On 13-11-2016 20:16, LanuHum wrote:

> Some years I post screenshots:
>
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3Cweb.5302425140bf5a347a3e03fe0%40news.povray.org%3E/?mtop=402018
> &moff=109
>
>
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3Cweb.56d33fab8302842a7a3e03fe0%40news.povray.org%3E/?mtop=407442
>
>

Yes, something like that would be nice indeed to have in POV-Ray.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"LanuHum" <Lan### [at] yandexru> wrote:
> David Buck <dav### [at] simberoncom> wrote:
> >
> > What POVRay needs is its own user interface tailored to POVRay. Other
> > user interfaces tend to break the world into triangles which don't
> > translate well to POVRay.  The POVRay text files are cumbersome because
> > they are non-visual and they force you to constantly switch from text
> > mode to render mode.
> >
> > I would like to see a user interface that supports all of the POVRay
> > primitives.  It would allow you select components of the scene with
> > parameters that are alterable.  You don't necessarily need to see the
> > text but rather a graphical representation of the text.  It would allow
> > you to change any parameters and would re-render the scene automatically
> > with those changes.  The rendering might be incremental - it renders in
> > low resolution first and refines the image as you wait or renders
> > without textures then with textures or it renders without reflections
> > and later adds reflections - just some ideas.
> >
> > I often find myself asking "What happens if I change this parameter?"
> > To answer that I need to keep editing and rendering until I understand
> > it.  I'd rather select the parameter in a UI and use the mouse to change
> > the value and see in real time what it does to the image.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> > David Buck
>
> Some years I post screenshots:
>
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3Cweb.5302425140bf5a347a3e03fe0%40news.povray.org%3E/?mtop=4020
18
> &moff=109
>
>
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3Cweb.56d33fab8302842a7a3e03fe0%40news.povray.org%3E/?mtop=4074
42


Indeed, as one of the latest capture shows in his thread, we strived hard with
Lanuhum to make the pov primitives dynamic into Blender and they are more
dynamic and parametric than all native Blender primitives ! They are all shipped
with official version of Blender.
https://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Extensions:2.6/Py/Scripts/Render/POV-Ray

At least try it! that's all we're begging for, with no feedback we can't improve
it! also of course some help with Python development would be welcome now that
the POV scenes can be imported and some pov primitives passed in and out of
Blender, things get more complex to maintain and might be broken without us even
knowing it. so even just a simple try and report is very precious to us.
Making a picture in the same go is a nice bonus.
If Moray was as capable as Blender for "finger painting" I would gladly
switch... But let's be pragmatic. That's why I chose POV: It had caustics when
Blender had none, Cycles didn't exist, and Lux Render had no perfectly curved
mathematical primitives.

I started learning Python specifically for this exporter, only to achieve this
very goal several years ago now. Not because Blender's"finger-painting" is
better than scripting... nor because POV scripting is better (no matter my own
preference, the needs must direct just like when pixar made movies with
renderman SDL) Why choose, when we can have both?... and even more! This is
called a synergy.

LanuHum joined me to develop a more experimental version and I try to port his
developments to the stable version whenever I can, and if they fit without
breaking too much. We receive even less feedback in the Blender community
because of the loudness of Cycles development there and belief that POV is too
old to be good. So we're counting on you ! Thanks for your very precious
attention along these past years!
With very special thanks to Clipka who has been very responsive to our requests,
such as alternative shading models, I hope you don't blame him for that...

By the way, about several renderers for one POV SDL, it's already available as
well with UberPOV, trying its stochastic AA should be compulsory for all povers
to see real life render times, promising to bring POV back in the race without
as much noise as Cycles! can't wait for the Spectral revolution as well !

I'm digressing, I hope not high-jacking... What I meant to say is I'm so glad
the original developer of POV seems to feel the same about the power of having
user interfaces and scripting stop resenting each-other!

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 13-11-2016 20:16, LanuHum wrote:
>
> > Some years I post screenshots:
> >
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3Cweb.5302425140bf5a347a3e03fe0%40news.povray.org%3E/?mtop=40
2018
> > &moff=109
> >
> >
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3Cweb.56d33fab8302842a7a3e03fe0%40news.povray.org%3E/?mtop=40
7442
> >
> >
>
> Yes, something like that would be nice indeed to have in POV-Ray.
>
> --
> Thomas

Where is it? This is for Povray.
:)

Post a reply to this message

That's disappointing in some ways but take into account that after, what?, 30
years?, if you go back to DKBTrace, POV-Ray is still around, a pioneer in open
source, the "stone soup group" it was called on CIS, and still has a devoted
following. SketchUp and Blender are only about half that old and really only
caught on in the last few years. After all POV is fundamentally a coder's
program which is both it's strength and why many people don't feel comfortable
not being able to see what they will get. In the 2D world Processing is also a
coding graphics tool but they have done much more to cool-ify it & to make it
more accessible and more in touch with current mediums of presentation,
especially on the web. My only suggestion for sprucing up this old house would
be to do some modernizing of the front end and put a few coats of paint and add
a few new time-saving appliances on the editor, which hasn't changed much from
when it was put up.

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen Klebs" <skl### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> That's disappointing in some ways but take into account that after, what?, 30
> years?, if you go back to DKBTrace, POV-Ray is still around, a pioneer in open
> source, the "stone soup group" it was called on CIS, and still has a devoted
> following. SketchUp and Blender are only about half that old and really only
> caught on in the last few years. After all POV is fundamentally a coder's
> program which is both it's strength and why many people don't feel comfortable
> not being able to see what they will get. In the 2D world Processing is also a
> coding graphics tool but they have done much more to cool-ify it & to make it
> more accessible and more in touch with current mediums of presentation,
> especially on the web. My only suggestion for sprucing up this old house would
> be to do some modernizing of the front end and put a few coats of paint and add
> a few new time-saving appliances on the editor, which hasn't changed much from
> when it was put up.

For such an effort to be noticed is hard because other programs do that all the
time, changing website theme (not by much) or even changing software name though
as a user, I wouldn't be against any of these... even switching back to an older
name and theme would be cool for the renderer's image, people forgot them
they're as brand new... Renaming pov DKB trace /PVRay/Persistence or anything
would look like it's really back for instance, any change is better than
asleep...  Anyway these are easy quick changes to decide after discussions

The hardest part of the job is really being done by pov developers currently I
don't think more than what is being done is necessary, but it does take time!
almost done, the good thing is that changes are more apparent now that they
happen in the main trunk because developers of experimental versions like
Uberpov pay attention to synchronise with trunk regularly and port back their
stable changes as opposed to the pov vs megapov gap of older days.

I agree with previous statements on one other thing that could currently be done
more, as said before:For end users to post more work in progress and finished
images outside of here!

Blenderartists.org does have an "other software" section, CG society,
Behance... whatever works.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/14/2016 05:43 AM, Mr wrote:
>
> Indeed, as one of the latest capture shows in his thread, we strived hard with
> Lanuhum to make the pov primitives dynamic into Blender and they are more
> dynamic and parametric than all native Blender primitives ! They are all shipped
> with official version of Blender.
> https://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Extensions:2.6/Py/Scripts/Render/POV-Ray
>

I've "borrowed" several of the sample materials over time - Thanks.

I'm not much of a modeling user. My POV-Ray use over the years being 
primarily utilitarian-work or utilitarian-community related. Creating 
figures, presentation, advertising and event materials, etc. with 
POV-Ray. It's a VERY capable, general tool in this respect.

Weighting my view as an infrequent user of modelers, it's my opinion any 
further investment in a general scene modeling interface should be 
Blender based.

I know there were plans for Moray on its acquisition, but given the 
actual state of Moray today with respect to 3.7 support today, I think 
it very unlikely it will be upgraded to support 3.7 onward(1).

I think we should admit this reality and change the last sentence of the 
opening paragraph of the Wikipedia POV-Ray wiki page at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POV-Ray

from:

"Many methods for generating the 3-D models are used, including a 
companion program "moray" for interactive modeling."

to perhaps:

"Many methods for generating the 3-D models are used, including the
the free and open source 3D creation suite Blender."

and then only lightly mention Moray in the body of the page. No new user 
to POV-Ray will pick up Moray as is. Thoughts? Want me to make this 
update?

Yes, there are other things on the POV-Ray Wikipedia page that should be 
updated I think. Of late, I've been making updates to the preview 
release portion of the page as Christoph puts out 3.7.1 releases, but 
nothing more.

Aside: One thing Blender, MakeHuman and the like do better than POV-Ray 
with respect to attracting new users is create cool, splash advertising 
web pages for features old and new. Another is there tends to be ready 
to grab linux packages - via the debian/ubuntu Personal Package Archive 
(PPA) mechanism, for example.

Bill P.

(1) - As important as any initial modeling implementation, is ongoing 
support. Blender has this covered to a degree due the Blender Foundation.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/13/2016 8:37 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Age? well above average I am sure.

Not to be discounted.


> So, what to do about it?

Well, I am going to spend some more time in Blender. To see what I can 
break. ;-)


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Sherry K. Shaw <ten### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> I Do Not Fingerpaint.
> 
> I Do Not Use Software That Expects Me To Fingerpaint.
> 
> I Am A Grownup.  I Can Read And Write.  I Can Do Math.
> 
> Reading And Writing And Math Are Accurate.  Fingerpainting Is Guesswork. 
>  I Like Accuracy.  I Do Not Like Guesswork.
> 
> I Like Reading And Writing.  I Like Doing Math.  I Want To Read And 
> Write And Do Math.  I Do Not Want To Fingerpaint.
> 
> And that's why I do POV-Ray.*  :)
> 
> --Sherry Shaw
> 
> * Oh, and also because it is awesome.

I agree; I enjoy coding my scenes, using loops, macros and etc.. I hate the
imprecision of most 3d software I have tried. I suppose I have some degree
of OCD going on because that imprecision bothers the heck out of me.

Most modeling software makes my blood boil, I find it terribly frustrating
as I must spend so much time beating the crap out of some UI that insists
that I learn it instead of just making what I want when I want it in the
fashion that I desire and by the means I dictate.

The UI is why I could not work with Blender and spent the loot for
Lightwave, and the scripting (in C#, yay!) is why I have Rhino and
Grasshopper. I use FormZ as well. Not much a fan of Python, which LW uses,
though it was one of the first languages I messed with. PlantStudio and Vue
Complete are pretty but good luck keeping them from filling their diapers
randomly when you try to do anything (and thats on a hexacore xeon with
24gb and dual 8gb nvidia/512gpu cores! Wtf).

Guess what? I prefer PovRay and can do far more with it far faster (not
rendering though lol) than I can with anything else I have. I like C
based/styled languages. Curly braces are nice.

The way I see it, if I am going to go to the masochistic trouble of
learning some infernal UI from the outer dark, it is going to be a
commercial package.

I am not a professional 3d artist by any means of course, my area of work
is in software architecture and algorithms, so my opinions here are of
nonpositive worth haha.

I wonder if there is an extension to Visual Studio that would support Pov?
I know that sort of thing is easier to do now since they opened up their
intellisense and language api.

Ian

Post a reply to this message

David Buck <dav### [at] simberoncom> wrote:
> What POVRay needs is its own user interface tailored to POVRay. Other 
> user interfaces tend to break the world into triangles which don't 
> translate well to POVRay.  The POVRay text files are cumbersome because 
> they are non-visual and they force you to constantly switch from text 
> mode to render mode.
> 
> I would like to see a user interface that supports all of the POVRay 
> primitives.  It would allow you select components of the scene with 
> parameters that are alterable.  You don't necessarily need to see the 
> text but rather a graphical representation of the text.  It would allow 
> you to change any parameters and would re-render the scene automatically 
> with those changes.  The rendering might be incremental - it renders in 
> low resolution first and refines the image as you wait or renders 
> without textures then with textures or it renders without reflections 
> and later adds reflections - just some ideas.
> 
> I often find myself asking "What happens if I change this parameter?" 
> To answer that I need to keep editing and rendering until I understand 
> it.  I'd rather select the parameter in a UI and use the mouse to change 
> the value and see in real time what it does to the image.
> 
> Thoughts?
> David Buck

Some form of node based editor would be nice. I built one of those for
picking up MEF plugins that allows the company to add code made by other
units to a common pool and thus enables composition of apps from already
tested production code instead of reinventing the wheel for each new app,
and requires no knowledge of code to use....just flowchart skills.

Node based UI is now very common, and Houdini has a good one. That app is
the easiest to use IMO of any commercial package I have tried.

Ian

Post a reply to this message

Stephen Klebs <skl### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> That's disappointing in some ways but take into account that after, what?, 30
> years?, if you go back to DKBTrace, POV-Ray is still around, a pioneer in open
> source, the "stone soup group" it was called on CIS, and still has a devoted
> following. SketchUp and Blender are only about half that old and really only
> caught on in the last few years. After all POV is fundamentally a coder's
> program which is both it's strength and why many people don't feel comfortable
> not being able to see what they will get. In the 2D world Processing is also a
> coding graphics tool but they have done much more to cool-ify it & to make it
> more accessible and more in touch with current mediums of presentation,
> especially on the web. My only suggestion for sprucing up this old house would
> be to do some modernizing of the front end and put a few coats of paint and add
> a few new time-saving appliances on the editor, which hasn't changed much from
> when it was put up.
> 

I use Processing as well to prototype reaction diffusion solvers, cellular
automata and other such.

The app supports language plugins too. A Pov one would be interesting,
which could then call up the renderer...

Ian

Post a reply to this message

Am 14.11.2016 um 20:02 schrieb [GDS|Enropy]:

> I wonder if there is an extension to Visual Studio that would support Pov?
> I know that sort of thing is easier to do now since they opened up their
> intellisense and language api.

I recall someone posting about a Visual Studio plug-in for POV-Ray a
while ago. Not sure what's become of it though.

There's also PovClipse for people who favour Eclipse.

Post a reply to this message

[GDS|Enropy] <gdsHYPHENentropyAThotmaolDOTcom> wrote:
> Sherry K. Shaw <ten### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> > I Do Not Fingerpaint.
> >
> > I Do Not Use Software That Expects Me To Fingerpaint.
> >
> > I Am A Grownup.  I Can Read And Write.  I Can Do Math.
> >
> > Reading And Writing And Math Are Accurate.  Fingerpainting Is Guesswork.
> >  I Like Accuracy.  I Do Not Like Guesswork.
> >
> > I Like Reading And Writing.  I Like Doing Math.  I Want To Read And
> > Write And Do Math.  I Do Not Want To Fingerpaint.
> >
> > And that's why I do POV-Ray.*  :)
> >
> > --Sherry Shaw
> >
> > * Oh, and also because it is awesome.
>
> I agree; I enjoy coding my scenes, using loops, macros and etc.. I hate the
> imprecision of most 3d software I have tried. I suppose I have some degree
> of OCD going on because that imprecision bothers the heck out of me.
>
> Most modeling software makes my blood boil, I find it terribly frustrating
> as I must spend so much time beating the crap out of some UI that insists
> that I learn it instead of just making what I want when I want it in the
> fashion that I desire and by the means I dictate.
>
> The UI is why I could not work with Blender and spent the loot for
> Lightwave, and the scripting (in C#, yay!) is why I have Rhino and
> Grasshopper. I use FormZ as well. Not much a fan of Python, which LW uses,
> though it was one of the first languages I messed with. PlantStudio and Vue
> Complete are pretty but good luck keeping them from filling their diapers
> randomly when you try to do anything (and thats on a hexacore xeon with
> 24gb and dual 8gb nvidia/512gpu cores! Wtf).
>
> Guess what? I prefer PovRay and can do far more with it far faster (not
> rendering though lol) than I can with anything else I have. I like C
> based/styled languages. Curly braces are nice.
>
> The way I see it, if I am going to go to the masochistic trouble of
> learning some infernal UI from the outer dark, it is going to be a
> commercial package.
>
> I am not a professional 3d artist by any means of course, my area of work
> is in software architecture and algorithms, so my opinions here are of
> nonpositive worth haha.
>
> I wonder if there is an extension to Visual Studio that would support Pov?
> I know that sort of thing is easier to do now since they opened up their
> intellisense and language api.
>
> Ian

I feel much the same. What I've always loved about POV-Ray, and I've been
addicted for a long time, is that you DON'T know exactly what you're going to
get. Every render is a bit of a surprise and a discovery and the only modelling
tool you really have is your imagination and what you envision in your head. It
reminds me of what photography was like in the pre-digital age. You fool around
with light-meter readings, and estimate distance, and dial in what you calculate
will be the right f-stops and press a little button. Alt-G. But you never really
know what the picture looks like until you get it into the darkroom and wait a
while and gradually watch it develop bit by bit. At no point in Blender or
Cinema 4D or any modern, real-time renderer do you get that same moment of wow.

Little off topic. Sorry. But I always wanted to say that. In appreciation and
encouragement of those who still keep this old, somewhat antiquated ship afloat.

Post a reply to this message

>
> For such an effort to be noticed is hard because other programs do that all the
> time, changing website theme (not by much) or even changing software name though
> as a user, I wouldn't be against any of these... even switching back to an older
> name and theme would be cool for the renderer's image, people forgot them
> they're as brand new... Renaming pov DKB trace /PVRay/Persistence or anything
> would look like it's really back for instance, any change is better than
> asleep...  Anyway these are easy quick changes to decide after discussions
>
> The hardest part of the job is really being done by pov developers currently I
> don't think more than what is being done is necessary, but it does take time!
> almost done, the good thing is that changes are more apparent now that they
> happen in the main trunk because developers of experimental versions like
> Uberpov pay attention to synchronise with trunk regularly and port back their
> stable changes as opposed to the pov vs megapov gap of older days.
>
> I agree with previous statements on one other thing that could currently be done
> more, as said before:For end users to post more work in progress and finished
> images outside of here!
>
> Blenderartists.org does have an "other software" section, CG society,
> Behance... whatever works.

It's a problem too that from the occasional coding I do the last thing I look
forward to is playing around with interface buttons and sliders and trying to
catch all the possible traps the end-user might fall in. UI is really a whole
different skill.

Post a reply to this message

Stephen Klebs <skl### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I feel much the same. What I've always loved about POV-Ray, and I've been
> addicted for a long time, is that you DON'T know exactly what you're going to
> get. Every render is a bit of a surprise and a discovery and the only modelling
> tool you really have is your imagination and what you envision in your head. It
> reminds me of what photography was like in the pre-digital age. You fool around
> with light-meter readings, and estimate distance, and dial in what you calculate
> will be the right f-stops and press a little button. Alt-G. But you never really
> know what the picture looks like until you get it into the darkroom and wait a
> while and gradually watch it develop bit by bit. At no point in Blender or
> Cinema 4D or any modern, real-time renderer do you get that same moment of wow.
> 
> Little off topic. Sorry. But I always wanted to say that. In appreciation and
> encouragement of those who still keep this old, somewhat antiquated ship afloat.
> 

It isn't really OT, what better way to figure out what to promote about the
current iteration of Pov than to discover not only what people like about
it, but who those people are and why they feel as they do?

One of the great things about Pov is that it forces you to utilize
visualization techniques, which improves your spatial skills and overall
mental proficiency in imagining complex things. This translates very well
into software development skills, as I will explain later.

An exercise I taught my wife and 6yo son which I have found to be very
effective, is to imagine a V8 engine in your mind, as a transparent
assembly, then run it, imagining each part operating properly at the same
time while rotating it around mentally and pulling pieces away, changing
the color, texture and transparency levels the entire time. You can even
cause it to fail in a number of ways.

You can then extend the idea to even more complex machines. A good place to
start is with a 2 stroke engine and work your way up to successively more
complex devices.

Envisioning chemical reactions down to the bonds/electron shell/valency
interactions can be very effective as well, which then builds into the
ability to visualize mathematical expressions as surfaces and volumes.

This technique is relaxing and really develops many skills such as thinking
along multiple, even contradictory, lines simultaneously. It isn't hard and
can be learned fairly easily.

A huge roadblock people unwittingly foist upon themselves is falling prey
to thinking linearly in words and speech, instead of multidimensional
images. This gets you into the habit of self constraint in mental
processing.

That constraint is also what stops people from reading a page or paragraph
at once, as instead they read to themselves in their mind. Your eyes
capture the page at once, and if you train yourself you can assimilate the
information at that same rate.

Most of the work I do with software is handled as a visualization exercise
and a background process, as I spend time doing other things or sitting
there with a bowl of fine Virginia flake tobacco, letting my mind process
all of the algorithmic interactions. Once that is all wrapped up, I spend a
few hours coding, and I am done. It is basically hours or days of quiet
contemplation followed by moments of frenzied typing. ;-)

This technique of visualization has enabled me to develop the reputation at
work for writing fully formed software with few to zero bugs, and in most
circumstances to debug legacy code without running it, once I memorize the
code base.

I wasn't kidding when I credited Pov and the Dev team for my career. While
my memory has always been very close to eidetic (but alas, I age...), I
doubt my mind would function as it does now without the influence Pov has
imparted to me, thus granting the ability to visualize code interaction as
stated. Cheers to all, and my undying thanks.

Perhaps this post will be of benefit to those who are considering a career
to which such modes of thinking would be advantageous. Give it a try, you
will likely surprise yourself with what you can do in short time.

Now this really IS off topic lol!

Ian

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:

>
> Well, I am going to spend some more time in Blender. To see what I can
> break. ;-)
>

Speaking ex cathedra as a developer here:

ALWAYS the best test of any software.  :)

--Sherry Shaw

-- 
#macro T(E,N)sphere{x,.4rotate z*E*60translate y*N pigment{wrinkles scale
.3}finish{ambient 1}}#end#local I=0;#while(I<5)T(I,1)T(1-I,-1)#local I=I+
1;#end camera{location-5*z}plane{z,37 pigment{granite color_map{[.7rgb 0]
[1rgb 1]}}finish{ambient 2}}//                                   TenMoons

Post a reply to this message

[GDS|Enropy] wrote:

>
> I hate the
> imprecision of most 3d software I have tried. I suppose I have some degree
> of OCD going on because that imprecision bothers the heck out of me.
>

I have a Big Giant Truckload of OCD going on and that imprecision is 
_precisely_ what bothers me.

OCD and I are old friends.  We have reached an agreement.  Whenever I 
find myself starting to count, I instead start to sing (preferably 
subvocally, out of consideration for the rest of the world).  I don't 
REALLY know how many steps it is from the front door of my house to the 
driver's door of my car, because that would be creepy.*

But deliberate imprecision...???  When precision is readily available...???

The human fingertip makes a really crappy mouse cursor.  It doesn't have 
a hotspot marked, and it obscures the point of contact just as a basic 
factor of its structure.  And there's a keyboard with a number pad on it 
RIGHT THERE...

So.....one million bonus points to whoever remembers the name of that 
Asimov story about the little genius boy who could do simple arithmetic 
without a calculator, since I think it sort of applies to this issue.

--Sherry Shaw

* 43, unless I park funny.  OH, GACK!  "The ants go marching one by one, 
hurrah, hurrah.  The ants go marching one by one, hurrah, hurrah..."

-- 
#macro T(E,N)sphere{x,.4rotate z*E*60translate y*N pigment{wrinkles scale
.3}finish{ambient 1}}#end#local I=0;#while(I<5)T(I,1)T(1-I,-1)#local I=I+
1;#end camera{location-5*z}plane{z,37 pigment{granite color_map{[.7rgb 0]
[1rgb 1]}}finish{ambient 2}}//                                   TenMoons

Post a reply to this message

Stephen Klebs wrote:
> ...why many people don't feel comfortable
> not being able to see what they will get.
>

Maybe this falls under the general heading of "You Know You've Been 
Ray-Tracing Too Long When...," but possibly the best moment of 
POV-userdom comes in that first shiny, shimmering, dark chocolate, sharp 
cheddar, soft black velvet, cork-popping-on-New-Year's-Eve, 
puppy-breath, giggling-baby, green-flash-at-sunset, sparkly moment when 
you type in a few dozen lines of code and know _exactly_ what you'll get.

--Sherry Shaw

-- 
#macro T(E,N)sphere{x,.4rotate z*E*60translate y*N pigment{wrinkles scale
.3}finish{ambient 1}}#end#local I=0;#while(I<5)T(I,1)T(1-I,-1)#local I=I+
1;#end camera{location-5*z}plane{z,37 pigment{granite color_map{[.7rgb 0]
[1rgb 1]}}finish{ambient 2}}//                                   TenMoons

Post a reply to this message

On 14-11-2016 14:54, LanuHum wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> On 13-11-2016 20:16, LanuHum wrote:
>>
>>> Some years I post screenshots:
>>>
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3Cweb.5302425140bf5a347a3e03fe0%40news.povray.org%3E/?mtop=40
> 2018
>>> &moff=109
>>>
>>>
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3Cweb.56d33fab8302842a7a3e03fe0%40news.povray.org%3E/?mtop=40
> 7442
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yes, something like that would be nice indeed to have in POV-Ray.
>>
>> --
>> Thomas
>
> Where is it? This is for Povray.
> :)
>

Yes, I know, but I understand that this is embedded in Blender, isn't 
it? So, is that not a problem for those not familiar with Blender?


-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 11/15/2016 8:01 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Yes, I know, but I understand that this is embedded in Blender, isn't
> it? So, is that not a problem for those not familiar with Blender?


I would love to see what LanuHum's translator makes of that last 
sentence. ;-)

The problem with Blender is that it is so big and it takes a lot of time 
to get to the point where you don't have to think about how to do 
things. But I can see that it will be worthwhile.

And the Z-axis is up. :(

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 15-11-2016 9:52, Stephen wrote:
> On 11/15/2016 8:01 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> Yes, I know, but I understand that this is embedded in Blender, isn't
>> it? So, is that not a problem for those not familiar with Blender?
>
>
> I would love to see what LanuHum's translator makes of that last
> sentence. ;-)

Oh dear, yes, I am sorry for that! ;-)

>
> The problem with Blender is that it is so big and it takes a lot of time
> to get to the point where you don't have to think about how to do
> things. But I can see that it will be worthwhile.
>
> And the Z-axis is up. :(
>

My own thoughts were originally going towards a dedicated tool, 
specifically built for POV-Ray, like Moray was. I am starting to realise 
that that may not be the smart way to go at all. As has been mentioned 
here, Blender might be the solution. However like you, I am afraid it 
may represent a serious hurdle to take before even reaching the POV-Ray 
application.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> On 11/15/2016 8:01 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> > Yes, I know, but I understand that this is embedded in Blender, isn't
> > it? So, is that not a problem for those not familiar with Blender?
>
>
> I would love to see what LanuHum's translator makes of that last
> sentence. ;-)
>
> The problem with Blender is that it is so big and it takes a lot of time
> to get to the point where you don't have to think about how to do
> things. But I can see that it will be worthwhile.
>
> And the Z-axis is up. :(
>
> --
>
> Regards
>      Stephen

I was thinking about the coordinates system this morning in the bus! Telling
myself it would come up in the discussion:
Our exporter applies transformation matrices to Blender objects and
switches them to pov coordinates this makes it comfortable for the user who
dosen't even have to think about xyz for simple scene drafting visually and can
keep thinking in pov coordinates system once he exported the scene and tweaks it
in a text file if necessary,

It does give us more complexity in the development of this exporter. Does it
slow up our export by a lot?

Anyway if one day one of the two software offered the two coordinates sytems, we
would strip these lines and see what it changes, but until then we'll have to
keep adapting.

Post a reply to this message

Am 15.11.2016 um 09:52 schrieb Stephen:
> On 11/15/2016 8:01 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> Yes, I know, but I understand that this is embedded in Blender, isn't
>> it? So, is that not a problem for those not familiar with Blender?
> 
> 
> I would love to see what LanuHum's translator makes of that last
> sentence. ;-)
> 
> The problem with Blender is that it is so big and it takes a lot of time
> to get to the point where you don't have to think about how to do
> things. But I can see that it will be worthwhile.
> 
> And the Z-axis is up. :(

Does it at least have a right-handed coordinate system?

Post a reply to this message

Am 15.11.2016 um 10:01 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 15-11-2016 9:52, Stephen wrote:
>> On 11/15/2016 8:01 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> Yes, I know, but I understand that this is embedded in Blender, isn't
>>> it? So, is that not a problem for those not familiar with Blender?
>>
>>
>> I would love to see what LanuHum's translator makes of that last
>> sentence. ;-)
> 
> Oh dear, yes, I am sorry for that! ;-)
> 
>>
>> The problem with Blender is that it is so big and it takes a lot of time
>> to get to the point where you don't have to think about how to do
>> things. But I can see that it will be worthwhile.
>>
>> And the Z-axis is up. :(
>>
> 
> My own thoughts were originally going towards a dedicated tool,
> specifically built for POV-Ray, like Moray was. I am starting to realise
> that that may not be the smart way to go at all. As has been mentioned
> here, Blender might be the solution. However like you, I am afraid it
> may represent a serious hurdle to take before even reaching the POV-Ray
> application.

Maybe someone should get involved with Blender UI development, and
implement an alternative UI for noobs, exposing only a subset of the
features, to give new users some guidance what features they really
need. Wings 3D does that (or at least did when I last used it), and I
really liked it.

Post a reply to this message

Am 15.11.2016 um 10:36 schrieb Mr:

> I was thinking about the coordinates system this morning in the bus! Telling
> myself it would come up in the discussion:
> Our exporter applies transformation matrices to Blender objects and
> switches them to pov coordinates this makes it comfortable for the user who
> dosen't even have to think about xyz for simple scene drafting visually and can
> keep thinking in pov coordinates system once he exported the scene and tweaks it
> in a text file if necessary,
> 
> It does give us more complexity in the development of this exporter. Does it
> slow up our export by a lot?
> 
> Anyway if one day one of the two software offered the two coordinates sytems, we
> would strip these lines and see what it changes, but until then we'll have to
> keep adapting.

Well, I've got news for you: POV-Ray has been able to use arbitrary
coordinate systems for ages ;)

For instance, to get a right-handed coordinate system with Z up, simply
specify:

    camera {
        sky       z
        up        z
        right     x*ASPECT_RATIO
        direction y
        ...
    }

and Bob's a relative of yours.

The slowdown upon both export from Blender and import into POV-Ray
should be negligible, and the slowdown during render is non-existent.

Post a reply to this message

Am 15.11.2016 um 04:51 schrieb Sherry K. Shaw:
> Stephen wrote:
> 
>>
>> Well, I am going to spend some more time in Blender. To see what I can
>> break. ;-)
>>
> 
> Speaking ex cathedra as a developer here:
> 
> ALWAYS the best test of any software.  :)

A former colleague of mine was a supernatural magnet for bad luck,
congenital handicaps and a shitty family included. Made him the most
valuable member of our testing team: Sometimes he'd literally just start
up a piece of software and it would crash on him; or just activate a
feature that had been tested over and over by other people with no hitch
and it would fail miserably on him.

He didn't search for bugs. They just came to him like flies to a nice
fresh pile of bovine feces.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/15/2016 12:36 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 15.11.2016 um 09:52 schrieb Stephen:
>> On 11/15/2016 8:01 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> Yes, I know, but I understand that this is embedded in Blender, isn't
>>> it? So, is that not a problem for those not familiar with Blender?
>>
>>
>> I would love to see what LanuHum's translator makes of that last
>> sentence. ;-)
>>
>> The problem with Blender is that it is so big and it takes a lot of time
>> to get to the point where you don't have to think about how to do
>> things. But I can see that it will be worthwhile.
>>
>> And the Z-axis is up. :(
>
> Does it at least have a right-handed coordinate system?
>
I don't know, I am past caring and I am not superstitious. I just like 
the Z axis to be the depth buffer. The way it is with oscilloscopes.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 11/15/2016 9:36 AM, Mr wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>> On 11/15/2016 8:01 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> Yes, I know, but I understand that this is embedded in Blender, isn't
>>> it? So, is that not a problem for those not familiar with Blender?
>>
>>
>> I would love to see what LanuHum's translator makes of that last
>> sentence. ;-)
>>
>> The problem with Blender is that it is so big and it takes a lot of time
>> to get to the point where you don't have to think about how to do
>> things. But I can see that it will be worthwhile.
>>
>> And the Z-axis is up. :(
>>
>> --
>>
>> Regards
>>       Stephen
>
> I was thinking about the coordinates system this morning in the bus! Telling
> myself it would come up in the discussion:
> Our exporter applies transformation matrices to Blender objects and
> switches them to pov coordinates this makes it comfortable for the user who
> dosen't even have to think about xyz for simple scene drafting visually and can
> keep thinking in pov coordinates system once he exported the scene and tweaks it
> in a text file if necessary,
>

I have a question or two and a blend scene that does not export. How do 
you want them reported?

If no one objects The Moray groups could be used. They were for Bishop3d.




-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> I hate the
>> imprecision of most 3d software I have tried. I suppose I have some
>> degree
>> of OCD going on because that imprecision bothers the heck out of me.
>>
>
> I have a Big Giant Truckload of OCD going on and that imprecision is
> _precisely_ what bothers me.

Sounds like you two would be better off with a CAD modeller rather than 
a mesh-based modeller. Draw what you like, but then you can 
constrain/dimension features, either with precise numerical values or 
equations/scripts.

For example, it's quite common to have a generic model of a screw, with 
parameters for length and diameter. The model is created in such a way 
that just changing those two parameters updates the model instantly.

Post a reply to this message

"Sherry K. Shaw" <ten### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>
> >
> > Well, I am going to spend some more time in Blender. To see what I can
> > break. ;-)
> >
>
> Speaking ex cathedra as a developer here:
>
> ALWAYS the best test of any software.  :)
>
> --Sherry Shaw
>
> --
> #macro T(E,N)sphere{x,.4rotate z*E*60translate y*N pigment{wrinkles scale
> .3}finish{ambient 1}}#end#local I=0;#while(I<5)T(I,1)T(1-I,-1)#local I=I+
> 1;#end camera{location-5*z}plane{z,37 pigment{granite color_map{[.7rgb 0]
> [1rgb 1]}}finish{ambient 2}}//                                   TenMoons

We must not forget that Mr and I do not suggest you abandon the tradition.
Using Blender, you can connect your handwritten codes in the overall scene.
Also, on the contrary, you can write your hands onstage and play the file you
created in Blender. We are expanding the opportunities are not limited to one.
:)

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >> I hate the
> >> imprecision of most 3d software I have tried. I suppose I have some
> >> degree
> >> of OCD going on because that imprecision bothers the heck out of me.
> >>
> >
> > I have a Big Giant Truckload of OCD going on and that imprecision is
> > _precisely_ what bothers me.
>
> Sounds like you two would be better off with a CAD modeller rather than
> a mesh-based modeller. Draw what you like, but then you can
> constrain/dimension features, either with precise numerical values or
> equations/scripts.
>
> For example, it's quite common to have a generic model of a screw, with
> parameters for length and diameter. The model is created in such a way
> that just changing those two parameters updates the model instantly.

We can do an instant update. This is where Povray-users will use Blender. :))))
Superellipsoid, supertorus and so on...


> Stephen wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, I am going to spend some more time in Blender. To see what I can
>> break. ;-)

You could ask me and Mr...

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:

>
> Maybe someone should get involved with Blender UI development, and
> implement an alternative UI for noobs, exposing only a subset of the
> features, to give new users some guidance what features they really
> need. Wings 3D does that (or at least did when I last used it), and I
> really liked it.

This could be a continuation of my idea. I chose the fox-toolkit, because it is
the fastest and has the support of opengl. The examples in the source code shows
how to select objects, move them. Start there, but I'm a bad student at school C
++.
:)))

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 15.11.2016 um 10:01 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> > On 15-11-2016 9:52, Stephen wrote:
> >> On 11/15/2016 8:01 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> >>> Yes, I know, but I understand that this is embedded in Blender, isn't
> >>> it? So, is that not a problem for those not familiar with Blender?
> >>
> >>
> >> I would love to see what LanuHum's translator makes of that last
> >> sentence. ;-)
> >
> > Oh dear, yes, I am sorry for that! ;-)
> >
> >>
> >> The problem with Blender is that it is so big and it takes a lot of time
> >> to get to the point where you don't have to think about how to do
> >> things. But I can see that it will be worthwhile.
> >>
> >> And the Z-axis is up. :(
> >>
> >
> > My own thoughts were originally going towards a dedicated tool,
> > specifically built for POV-Ray, like Moray was. I am starting to realise
> > that that may not be the smart way to go at all. As has been mentioned
> > here, Blender might be the solution. However like you, I am afraid it
> > may represent a serious hurdle to take before even reaching the POV-Ray
> > application.
>
> Maybe someone should get involved with Blender UI development, and
> implement an alternative UI for noobs, exposing only a subset of the
> features, to give new users some guidance what features they really
> need. Wings 3D does that (or at least did when I last used it), and I
> really liked it.
Ok! I can do that for POV users !

Post a reply to this message

>>>> I hate the
>>>> imprecision of most 3d software I have tried. I suppose I have some
>>>> degree
>>>> of OCD going on because that imprecision bothers the heck out of me.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have a Big Giant Truckload of OCD going on and that imprecision is
>>> _precisely_ what bothers me.
>>
>> Sounds like you two would be better off with a CAD modeller rather than
>> a mesh-based modeller. Draw what you like, but then you can
>> constrain/dimension features, either with precise numerical values or
>> equations/scripts.
>>
>> For example, it's quite common to have a generic model of a screw, with
>> parameters for length and diameter. The model is created in such a way
>> that just changing those two parameters updates the model instantly.
>
> We can do an instant update. This is where Povray-users will use Blender. :))))
> Superellipsoid, supertorus and so on...

It's just a shame you would be forced to use the Blender UI to access 
such things... Maybe the developers have seen sense since last time I 
used it? I will need to check it out again at some point.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >>>> I hate the
> >>>> imprecision of most 3d software I have tried. I suppose I have some
> >>>> degree
> >>>> of OCD going on because that imprecision bothers the heck out of me.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I have a Big Giant Truckload of OCD going on and that imprecision is
> >>> _precisely_ what bothers me.
> >>
> >> Sounds like you two would be better off with a CAD modeller rather than
> >> a mesh-based modeller. Draw what you like, but then you can
> >> constrain/dimension features, either with precise numerical values or
> >> equations/scripts.
> >>
> >> For example, it's quite common to have a generic model of a screw, with
> >> parameters for length and diameter. The model is created in such a way
> >> that just changing those two parameters updates the model instantly.
> >
> > We can do an instant update. This is where Povray-users will use Blender. :))))
> > Superellipsoid, supertorus and so on...
>
> It's just a shame you would be forced to use the Blender UI to access
> such things... Maybe the developers have seen sense since last time I
> used it? I will need to check it out again at some point.

I misunderstood or poorly explained.
I mean, what if it is necessary to PWA users in Blender, then it can be
implemented.
But, as Mr writing - I need feedback.
When people use a Blender - they will express their wishes.
We will take into account the wishes and correct mistakes.
:)

Post a reply to this message

"LanuHum" <Lan### [at] yandexru> wrote:
>
> I misunderstood or poorly explained.
> I mean, what if it is necessary to PWA users in Blender, then it can be
> implemented.
> But, as Mr writing - I need feedback.
> When people use a Blender - they will express their wishes.
> We will take into account the wishes and correct mistakes.
> :)

PWA = Povray!
:))) translate

Post a reply to this message

in news:582b029d$1@news.povray.org clipka wrote:

>>> The problem with Blender is that it is so big [...]

> Maybe someone should get involved with Blender UI development, and
> implement an alternative UI for noobs, exposing only a subset of the
> features, [...]

one "GUI" for one task, blend out everything else. Push all GUI elements 
to a second screen.

Ingo

Post a reply to this message

>
> It isn't really OT, what better way to figure out what to promote about the
> current iteration of Pov than to discover not only what people like about
> it, but who those people are and why they feel as they do?
>
> One of the great things about Pov is that it forces you to utilize
> visualization techniques, which improves your spatial skills and overall
> mental proficiency in imagining complex things. This translates very well
> into software development skills, as I will explain later.
>
> An exercise I taught my wife and 6yo son which I have found to be very
> effective, is to imagine a V8 engine in your mind, as a transparent
> assembly, then run it, imagining each part operating properly at the same
> time while rotating it around mentally and pulling pieces away, changing
> the color, texture and transparency levels the entire time. You can even
> cause it to fail in a number of ways.
>
> You can then extend the idea to even more complex machines. A good place to
> start is with a 2 stroke engine and work your way up to successively more
> complex devices.
>
> Envisioning chemical reactions down to the bonds/electron shell/valency
> interactions can be very effective as well, which then builds into the
> ability to visualize mathematical expressions as surfaces and volumes.
>
> This technique is relaxing and really develops many skills such as thinking
> along multiple, even contradictory, lines simultaneously. It isn't hard and
> can be learned fairly easily.
>
> A huge roadblock people unwittingly foist upon themselves is falling prey
> to thinking linearly in words and speech, instead of multidimensional
> images. This gets you into the habit of self constraint in mental
> processing.
>
> That constraint is also what stops people from reading a page or paragraph
> at once, as instead they read to themselves in their mind. Your eyes
> capture the page at once, and if you train yourself you can assimilate the
> information at that same rate.
>
> Most of the work I do with software is handled as a visualization exercise
> and a background process, as I spend time doing other things or sitting
> there with a bowl of fine Virginia flake tobacco, letting my mind process
> all of the algorithmic interactions. Once that is all wrapped up, I spend a
> few hours coding, and I am done. It is basically hours or days of quiet
> contemplation followed by moments of frenzied typing. ;-)
>
> This technique of visualization has enabled me to develop the reputation at
> work for writing fully formed software with few to zero bugs, and in most
> circumstances to debug legacy code without running it, once I memorize the
> code base.
>
> I wasn't kidding when I credited Pov and the Dev team for my career. While
> my memory has always been very close to eidetic (but alas, I age...), I
> doubt my mind would function as it does now without the influence Pov has
> imparted to me, thus granting the ability to visualize code interaction as
> stated. Cheers to all, and my undying thanks.
>
> Perhaps this post will be of benefit to those who are considering a career
> to which such modes of thinking would be advantageous. Give it a try, you
> will likely surprise yourself with what you can do in short time.
>
> Now this really IS off topic lol!
>
> Ian

That's fascinating. I was a furniture designer in a previous life. I designed
before there was CAD and modellers and after. Before, to picture how all the
pieces would look together I would just have to go lie down and close my eyes
and just move everything around in my head. See it from different angles, try it
with different shapes. I first discovered POV as an aid. Looking back all my
best designs came out of that process of using one's imagination rather than
letting the techniques of software controlling what it has been programmed to
pre-visualize what it thinks you should see.

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen Klebs" <skl### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
> That's fascinating. I was a furniture designer in a previous life. I designed
> before there was CAD and modellers and after. Before, to picture how all the
> pieces would look together I would just have to go lie down and close my eyes
> and just move everything around in my head. See it from different angles, try it
> with different shapes. I first discovered POV as an aid. Looking back all my
> best designs came out of that process of using one's imagination rather than
> letting the techniques of software controlling what it has been programmed to
> pre-visualize what it thinks you should see.
>

Well, of course. If you imagined metropolis extraterrestrial civilization ...
sure every building (40 thousand buildings) need to create a text editor ...
From this you will get great pleasure, but your people will see a picture after
a Flood.
:)))

Post a reply to this message

Sherry K. Shaw <ten### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> I have a Big Giant Truckload of OCD going on and that imprecision is 
> _precisely_ what bothers me.
> 

I paint also, oils, acrylics, Sumi-e, watercolor...and I always, precisely
to scale, sketch the design of what I will paint in advance within a graph
paper sketch book.

Then when transferring to canvas I utilize techniques I picked up in
drafting classes to replicate the design exactly down to the limit of
precision of my measuring instruments. This takes a while.

When actually painting I ensure my lines are of exact width, unwavering in
shape be it curved or straight, and enforce some overarching algorithmic
relationship between the colors, positions and etc..

> OCD and I are old friends.  We have reached an agreement.  Whenever I 
> find myself starting to count, I instead start to sing (preferably 
> subvocally, out of consideration for the rest of the world).  I don't 
> REALLY know how many steps it is from the front door of my house to the 
> driver's door of my car, because that would be creepy.*

I do not manifest it as such, but instead as a visceral disgust for any
imprecision originating with myself in works to which I dedicate and amount
of time and effort. 

I hate paper and paperwork, can tolerate only mild to moderate
disorganization unless priorities prevent rectification of such or would
otherwise be disadvantageous.

> But deliberate imprecision...???  When precision is readily available...???
> 

And easy to achieve.

> The human fingertip makes a really crappy mouse cursor.  It doesn't have 
> a hotspot marked, and it obscures the point of contact just as a basic 
> factor of its structure.  And there's a keyboard with a number pad on it 
> RIGHT THERE...

YES! That!

> So.....one million bonus points to whoever remembers the name of that 
> Asimov story about the little genius boy who could do simple arithmetic 
> without a calculator, since I think it sort of applies to this issue.
> 

I haven't read that one, but will look out for it.

Since 2013 (for sci-fi) I have read the entire Foundation series, all of
the Dune books, The Wheel of Time, The Dark Tower series ...nearly all of
the works by the following (some specific listed series only): David Brin,
Stephen Baxter, Terry Pratchett, Greg Egan, Peter f Hamilton, Ian Douglas,
Arthur C Clarke, Gregory Benford, Alastair Reynolds, Vernor Vinge, Larry
Niven, Robert Charles Wilson, Kevin J Anderson (specifically the Saga of
the Seven Suns and its extension), Michael McCloskey, Jerry Pournelle, Iain
M Banks, Dan Simmons, H.P. Lovecraft, Clark Ashton Smith, Willian Hope
Hodgeson....I have a list of others I am burning through currently but I am
not done with their works, so they don't go on this list yet.

If you haven't read these folks and can tolerate world-views and political
thought potentially in diametric opposition to your own and still enjoy the
content (such was the case with me), check them all out. Peter F Hamilton
is one of the best in my opinion, but they are all good in different ways.

I can't sleep much and so read books, journal papers or write code instead.
I might as well better myself.

> --Sherry Shaw
> 
> * 43, unless I park funny.  OH, GACK!  "The ants go marching one by one, 
> hurrah, hurrah.  The ants go marching one by one, hurrah, hurrah..."
>

Post a reply to this message

Stephen Klebs <skl### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
L
> That's fascinating. I was a furniture designer in a previous life. I designed
> before there was CAD and modellers and after. Before, to picture how all the
> pieces would look together I would just have to go lie down and close my eyes
> and just move everything around in my head. See it from different angles, try it
> with different shapes. I first discovered POV as an aid. Looking back all my
> best designs came out of that process of using one's imagination rather than
> letting the techniques of software controlling what it has been programmed to
> pre-visualize what it thinks you should see.
> 

Exactly; the same phenomena of "brain drain" is occurring in all fields.
The reliance upon tools fundamentally weakens our ability to operate
without them. There is nothing wrong with tools in and of themselves, and
through their use we can perform metatasks quite quickly, but like Opioids
used incorrectly, it can quickly grow into a dependence...and that is
certainly not good.

I look at the elementary school mathematics books from my grandfather, and
compare those to what is being used here (USA) now and the difference is
utterly stark.

Whereas long ago Algebra was truly a fundamental part of all early
education, now it is relegated to GT/AG classes and for the rest it is
delayed until much later in the curricula of standard public education.
This is sick. Why break the minds of an entire people?

That among the whole flood of propaganda is why my son goes to a private
school, does not watch TV, have a phone, use the internet, play video games
or any other such nonsense.

He does own a laptop, and I am teaching him how to program and construct
various forms of robotic and autonomous systems, as he is very interested
in that subject along with Chemistry. He is six, and I am quite sure that
were he exposed to mass media he would not manifest nearly such affinity
for science and technology.

Now I'm really, *really* OT.
Oh well. Free-for-all! Lol

Ian

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> Sounds like you two would be better off with a CAD modeller rather than 
> a mesh-based modeller. Draw what you like, but then you can 
> constrain/dimension features, either with precise numerical values or 
> equations/scripts.
> 
> For example, it's quite common to have a generic model of a screw, with 
> parameters for length and diameter. The model is created in such a way 
> that just changing those two parameters updates the model instantly.
> 

This is why I have FormZ (love formz), Rhino+Grasshopper, CanvasX14 and so
on. :)

Z-Brush would give me nightmares. Lol

Ian

Post a reply to this message

ingo <ing### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> in news:582b029d$1@news.povray.org clipka wrote:
> 
>>>> The problem with Blender is that it is so big [...]
> 
>> Maybe someone should get involved with Blender UI development, and
>> implement an alternative UI for noobs, exposing only a subset of the
>> features, [...]
> 
> one "GUI" for one task, blend out everything else. Push all GUI elements 
> to a second screen.
> 
> Ingo
> 
> 

The blender UI, rumor had it long ago, was intentionally (or
retro-intentionally) obfuscated in order to fund the app by selling manuals
and such. At least that was the rumor years ago, and after using it
(well...trying to) I could totally buy that conjecture. ;D

Or it could have been a consequence of design-by-committee. :p

I have not attempted to do so in years though, and based on the
conversation here perhaps it is time I did.

My ideal UI would be like TrueSpace 3 + Bryce + Houdini.
Hell, Houdini is frankly in my opinion perfect. I just cannot afford it,
though there is a free version and a cheap version I like to own full
versions, so Lightwave haha!

Ian

Post a reply to this message

in
news:135### [at] newspo
vray.org [GDS|Entropy] wrote: 

> The blender UI, rumor had it long ago, was intentionally (or
> retro-intentionally) obfuscated in order to fund the app by selling
> manuals and such. 

't was an inhouse tool before released to the public and at that time it 
already had this "informal" GUI.

I liked sPatch but it needed way to many mouse clicks, I still use Silo 
every now and then and loved 3D Studio R4. There also used to be an 
excellent blob moddeler with blob-splines and stuff and Leveller for 
terrains.

Ingo

Post a reply to this message