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

On 2016-11-15 3:53 PM, [GDS|Entropy] wrote:
> 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
>

Funny you should mention TrueSpace. I met up with the author and founder 
of the company - Roman Ormandy.  We discussed having me write a new 
rendering back-end for TrueSpace to allow for raytracing and other 
things.  We never started on the project but it was great meeting him. 
We both admired each others' work.

David Buck

Post a reply to this message

Am 15.11.2016 um 21:53 schrieb [GDS|Entropy]:

> 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

The software started out as an in-house tool. For me that's explanation
enough for a crappy UI.

Post a reply to this message

ingo <ing### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> 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
> 

I actually still have a copy of Leveller and sPatch kicking around in one
of my raid stacks somewhere still. I keep *everything*. ;)

Ian

Post a reply to this message

David Buck <dav### [at] simberoncom> wrote:
> Funny you should mention TrueSpace. I met up with the author and founder 
> of the company - Roman Ormandy.  We discussed having me write a new 
> rendering back-end for TrueSpace to allow for raytracing and other 
> things.  We never started on the project but it was great meeting him. 
> We both admired each others' work.
> 
> David Buck
> 

Oh man that would have been awesome! TrueSpace with Pov Power...

This is yet another reason for me to never forgive Microsoft for what they
did to TrueSpace, which was an act of digital terrorism IMO. Like DAZ
essentially killing Carrara and Bryce. I'd rather they open source it than
let the product die.

Ian

Post a reply to this message

> 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

For what I try to do, 3D modelling, while it can construct models with perfect
exactness, has a huge limitation in that it relies so much on just the geometric
properties and mathematical relations of things not necessarily how they look.
Designs created by computer tend to come out predictably the same. Like the way
automobiles now look much alike. I love math and I love geometric shapes but as
a graphic artist concerned with pictures what POV makes possible is not just the
re-creation of solid objects but the ability to play with light itself and how
we really experience the visual world. Like in painting. As a true raytracer POV
is unlike almost any other digital canvas, though in render time we pay a high
price. Sorry about OT again but this has become a really great thread for those
who hope that POV stays alive.

Post a reply to this message

in news:web.582bae685604f23f89fafb20@news.povray.org Stephen Klebs
wrote: 

> [...] the ability to play with
> light itself and how we really experience the visual world. 

A GUI would probably have stopped at rgb 1, we can do rgb 10, or -3 we can 
reuse the radiosity data from one scene in an other. You can even aim at 
realism,

Ingo

Post a reply to this message

On 16-11-2016 1:14, [GDS|Entropy] wrote:
> ingo <ing### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> 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
>>
>
> I actually still have a copy of Leveller and sPatch kicking around in one
> of my raid stacks somewhere still. I keep *everything*. ;)
>

Why do I recognise that? :-) I have those too somewhere, but instead use 
GeoControl and Silo respectively. Wings3D once in a while. All with 
different GUI's but fairly easy to learn/remember.


-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 15-11-2016 14:29, Stephen wrote:
> 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.
>

That would be an excellent re-use. It would also stimulate the focus on 
Blender and its POV-Ray links and - who knows? - I shall possibly try to 
learn to use it seriously at last. ;-)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 15-11-2016 21:10, [GDS|Entropy] wrote:
[snip]
> 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.
>
[snip]

A kindred soul!

I have not read all of those but a fair amount of them over the years. 
Iain M. Banks has been a recent discovery of mine. A pity he passed 
away; I would have enjoyed more of his Culture novels.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

[GDS|Entropy] <gdsHYPHENentropyAThotmaolDOTcom> wrote:
>
> 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

You can not afford to Houdini?
I can afford to Houdini.
I do not like Windows. The interface Windows is much scarier than Blender GUI.
Some people can not afford the Windows!
Povray - cross-platform application and Blender - cross-platform application.
They can use a child from a poor family, if it finds a landfill discarded
computer. He installs Linux, Blender, Povray and may find its purpose
Do not forget about it!
Talented people are not all rich.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/12/2016 6:16 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> On 11/7/2016 6:51 PM, [GDS|Enropy] wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> As a result of a different discussion, I used Google Trends to track
>> searches for Pov since 2004.
>>
>> What I found is sad, but I think I found a ray of hope (d'oh..pun).
>>
>> Since 2004, searches for (pov ray and pov-ray) have practically dropped
>> orders of magnitude:
>> https://www.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=pov-ray,pov%20ray
>>
>> Searches for (povray) are worse:
>> https://www.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=pov-ray,pov%20ray,povray
>>
>> Here is povray vs blender and sketch up:
>>
https://www.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=pov-ray,blender%203d,pov%20ray,sketchup
>>
>>
>> I found that the interest in Pov seems highly localized, whereas blender
>> and sketchup are more widely spread.
>>
>> What is this hope of which I speak?
>>
>> Well, SketchUp is apparently MADLY popular, and there is a plugin called
>> SU2POV which allows interop.
>>
>> I didn't even know it existed until I specifically searched for a
>> Sketchup
>> plugin for Pov...so I think if that plugin could be improved, and
>> sketchup
>> users here and elsewhere did a bit of old-school mid 90's software
>> evangelism...Pov might just get a good influx of new blood.
>>
>> This would need to be done most especially by those speaking other
>> languages, due to the highly localized interest in Pov vs sketchup.
>>
>> Does anyone else have thoughts about this? Strategies?
>>
>> Ian
>>
>
> The main reasons I use POV-Ray are because it's free, and because I'm
> too lazy to learn Blender. My 2 cents.
>
> Mike

_AND_ I like to code.

Mike

Post a reply to this message

"Sherry K. Shaw" <ten### [at] aolcom> 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.*  :)

artists do love to fingerpaint, programmers don't (aside from wildguesses)

that's the main deal about Blender adoption vs povray decline

that said, Blender is scripted in python, it can be as accurate as you want.
Wanna scale an object to be 2x as width onscreen?  Type s2x or s3.14y or
whatever.  There are also metric tools.

like it or not, povray is an ancient codebase geared at tech-heads with some
artistic urges and little else.  As it is, we're lucky that there's an
integrated povray exporter in Blender.  though with cycles now being the default
renderer and a path-tracing at that, I wonder about its true utility...

the best thing about povray is the HOF.

just look how far in the past it became:  we are still using usenet to talk
about it.  how about some whatsapp? :p

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 14:29:51 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> just look how far in the past it became:  we are still using usenet to
> talk about it.  how about some whatsapp? :p

Oh hell no. ;)

But maybe something like Discourse - though I'd prefer something that has 
the capability of an NNTP backend, but that's just me being an Internet 
luddite. ;)

Jim
-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 15-11-2016 21:10, [GDS|Entropy] wrote:
> A kindred soul!

:D
Pov folks are the best!

> I have not read all of those but a fair amount of them over the years. 
> Iain M. Banks has been a recent discovery of mine. A pity he passed 
> away; I would have enjoyed more of his Culture novels.
> 

Oh no! I didn't know he died. I kept checking his iBooks list... That
sucks. Maybe he left some notes for future books to his estate....<hopes>.
A colleague when I was in Kansas training for this one company turned me
onto Banks.

I was sad about Pratchett and Clarke too. Both wrote some GREAT books and
both also did some nice collaborations with Baxter. Clarke is how I FOUND
Baxter and Pratchett.

I remember when the movie Interstellar came out...whoever wrote that read
Baxters Ark (of the Flood/Ark duo). They ripped off SO much from it, it was
embarrassing. I think they must have been a Baxter fan, because there was a
LOT from his other books like nods to the Xelee sequence and more.

Greg Egan I spoke to a few weeks ago and he has some epics in the works. I
had to reverse engineer his email address based on knowing his country and
website...but it worked! Lol. I really enjoyed the Orthogonal series,
Schilds Ladder, Diaspora and more. I hope he extends the universes of those
books, and I told him as much. They are so rich and vibrant and believable,
it would be a shame to have only one book in them (Schilds ladder,
Diaspora). Orthogonal was really cool, with how he constructed the
operation of time and space...4d axis was actually navigably spatial AND
temporal...sick!

The guy actually builds reasonably self-consistent axiomatic foundations
(enter Godels incompleteness theorems lol) for the physics in his
universes....talk about hardcore!

Baxter also is pretty hard in certain respects, I loved his solar system
sized fractal shaped computer, and how he went into Godel a good
bit....then his representation of navigable Kerr metric...(Xelee) and his
sick wormhole artifacts from the Manifold trilogy...the universes man..

Ian

Post a reply to this message

LanuHum <Lan### [at] yandexru> wrote:
> [GDS|Entropy] <gdsHYPHENentropyAThotmaolDOTcom> wrote:
>> 
>> 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
> 
> You can not afford to Houdini?
> I can afford to Houdini.
> I do not like Windows. The interface Windows is much scarier than Blender GUI.
> Some people can not afford the Windows!
> Povray - cross-platform application and Blender - cross-platform application.
> They can use a child from a poor family, if it finds a landfill discarded
> computer. He installs Linux, Blender, Povray and may find its purpose
> Do not forget about it!
> Talented people are not all rich.
> 

If you have the 8,000 usd for full Houdini then you are fortunate my
friend! Alas, The Minister of Finance (wife) would have none of that...lol

Ian

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

Ah Nemesis! Good to see you still here after all these years. :)

> artists do love to fingerpaint, programmers don't (aside from wildguesses)
> 

We might write a program that finger-paints. :p

> that's the main deal about Blender adoption vs povray decline
> 
> that said, Blender is scripted in python, it can be as accurate as you want.
> Wanna scale an object to be 2x as width onscreen?  Type s2x or s3.14y or
> whatever.  There are also metric tools.

Thats what it came down to for me;  both LW and Blender use python, both
have deep UIs (though I find LW a bit more comprehensible) and both have a
big community.

So I went LW due to the UI, program and format support, etc..

> like it or not, povray is an ancient codebase geared at tech-heads with some
> artistic urges and little else.  As it is, we're lucky that there's an
> integrated povray exporter in Blender.  though with cycles now being the default
> renderer and a path-tracing at that, I wonder about its true utility...

Pov can be more though, this is what I want to see. O want it to become
faster, more easily supported by other software, and through this have its
user base grow once more.

> just look how far in the past it became:  we are still using usenet to talk
> about it.  how about some whatsapp? :p
> 

I like this forum because of the people. Many of you have been around for
decades, and it is nice to be able to come around and chat with all of the
folks I knew long ago.

Without the people, their friendliness, and their willingness to assist and
share, Pov would never have become what it is.

Half of what makes Pov great is this community in my opinion.

Cheers!

Ian

Post a reply to this message

Am 17.11.2016 um 01:03 schrieb [GDS|Entropy]:

> I remember when the movie Interstellar came out...whoever wrote that read
> Baxters Ark (of the Flood/Ark duo). They ripped off SO much from it, it was
> embarrassing. I think they must have been a Baxter fan, because there was a
> LOT from his other books like nods to the Xelee sequence and more.

Ripped off? I doubt it. Nods? Sounds more like it. I don't know Baxters
works, but I do know that the movie was teeming with references to "2001
- A Space Odyssey", and those were quite certainly winks and nods.

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 17.11.2016 um 01:03 schrieb [GDS|Entropy]:
> 
>> I remember when the movie Interstellar came out...whoever wrote that read
>> Baxters Ark (of the Flood/Ark duo). They ripped off SO much from it, it was
>> embarrassing. I think they must have been a Baxter fan, because there was a
>> LOT from his other books like nods to the Xelee sequence and more.
> 
> Ripped off? I doubt it. Nods? Sounds more like it. I don't know Baxters
> works, but I do know that the movie was teeming with references to "2001
> - A Space Odyssey", and those were quite certainly winks and nods.
> 
> 

Yup I caught those too. Check out Flood/Ark, you will see what I mean...its
mostly with the technology and some plot points, but there is a clear link
of whatever form it may be. I honestly expected to see Baxter listed in the
credits somewhere. :)

Ian

Post a reply to this message

Hah!  My two kinds of life experience in re computers:

(1)  If it's a simple operation, and I'm trying to demonstrate it to a 
n00b, It Will Not Under Any Circumstances Work.  The internet will go 
down.  The thingy will overheat.  The doodad will explode.  The dog will 
eat their homework.  Something.

(2)  If some reasonably intelligent person is trying to explain to me 
the silly thing their computer is doing, once I walk into the room, it 
will immediately stop doing it.  It will be fine.  I just tell them that 
I have the magical power to heal computers.

--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

"LanuHum" <Lan### [at] yandexru> wrote:
> [GDS|Entropy] <gdsHYPHENentropyAThotmaolDOTcom> wrote:
> >
> > 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
>
> You can not afford to Houdini?
> I can afford to Houdini.
> I do not like Windows. The interface Windows is much scarier than Blender GUI.
> Some people can not afford the Windows!
> Povray - cross-platform application and Blender - cross-platform application.
> They can use a child from a poor family, if it finds a landfill discarded
> computer. He installs Linux, Blender, Povray and may find its purpose
> Do not forget about it!
> Talented people are not all rich.

Yes, a beautiful idea worth reminding ! thanks

Post a reply to this message

[GDS|Entropy] <gdsHYPHENentropyAThotmaolDOTcom> wrote:
> LanuHum <Lan### [at] yandexru> wrote:
> > [GDS|Entropy] <gdsHYPHENentropyAThotmaolDOTcom> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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
> >
> > You can not afford to Houdini?
> > I can afford to Houdini.
> > I do not like Windows. The interface Windows is much scarier than Blender GUI.
> > Some people can not afford the Windows!
> > Povray - cross-platform application and Blender - cross-platform application.
> > They can use a child from a poor family, if it finds a landfill discarded
> > computer. He installs Linux, Blender, Povray and may find its purpose
> > Do not forget about it!
> > Talented people are not all rich.
> >
>
> If you have the 8,000 usd for full Houdini then you are fortunate my
> friend! Alas, The Minister of Finance (wife) would have none of that...lol
>
> Ian

I do not have a wife. I myself manage their finances. But I know how to write
scripts in Blender using python, so I will not spend money needlessly. :)

Post a reply to this message

I was thinking about this on my drive into work - and I think that a good way to
make POV-Ray more usable would to compare and contrast the way people use
hand-coding vs graphical modeling and WHY.

With graphical modeling, one can see a place or a thing, and move something to
that place, or move that thing to a new place or orientation.

I understand that there may be issues with "exactness", and there are certainly
ways to bridge the gap.  Snap & glue, alignment grids, etc.

from the other side, I think a lot of people have tried to achieve some of the
ease of use of modeling in hand-coding by writing macros that perform certain
tasks that a modeler does - and indeed, it's likely that very similar code
operates in the back end of a modeler.

Tasks such as
"center THIS object at THAT point"
"Align the left side of THIS with the right side of THAT"
"Align the edge of THIS with THAT guideline (axis)"

Although I haven't had the time to pursue the idea - I think that something
along the lines of VISIO's "smart-shapes" would be very useful.
It would be nice to have a pool of object metadata to query and modify that
could be accessible from inside the scene SDL.
This would likely be a list of axes, edges, endpoints, etc that would be
available to the scene writer so that other objects could be aligned with that
object, or the object could be rotated around that point, etc.

Again, there are likely macros and whatnot that already do much of this - but
the idea here is that every object is addressable, and has some basic list of
variables to work with, rather than having to hand code it all, every time.
I'm not sure how to implement this - it seems to me that the way POV SDL works,
the parser would have to scan through the SDL, populate the object attribute
lists, and then parse the scene again, only this time it would recognize and
interpret variable that were undefined during the first parsing.
I guess maybe it would work sort of like the 2-stage radiosity method.
Run a Stage1 scene through the parser and renderer, store the data,
and then use that stored data in a more complex scene.

Still just thinking out loud here, and brainstorming things that might be looked
at as options.

Post a reply to this message

[GDS|Entropy] <gdsHYPHENentropyAThotmaolDOTcom> wrote:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
> Ah Nemesis! Good to see you still here after all these years. :)

Good to see you too, INVALID ADDRESS! o.o

(it's how it's shown in the web interface, I've not used the NNTP software for
years.  I can see in the reply GDS/Entropy, which I kind of vaguely remember)


> I like this forum because of the people. Many of you have been around for
> decades, and it is nice to be able to come around and chat with all of the
> folks I knew long ago.

sure bet, sometimes I lurk in just to watch Stephen and Jim amusing interchanges
:)

I just wish povray just worked here at workplace.  Last time I installed, it had
a rough time with the last 3 or so iterations of Windows that left it useless...
how about a zip install?

Post a reply to this message

>SDL.

Might this be the "problem"? Programmers of GUI3DModellers don't see the SDL as the 
"API"?

Ingo

Post a reply to this message