I had a great idea recently...

Do a "User Documentation Project"!

I had the idea while noticing that the Pov-Ray docs, while complete, didn't
go into much detail in certain cases, and there are people that DO know
certain aspects very well. (John VanSickle comes to mind....).

It seems to me that much of the manual could do with expanding on topics
(Media is one example) and tutorials.

So, here's the complete idea:
1. With the pov-team's permission (please, can we?), rewrite the pov-ray
docs.
2. Make it available in a number of formats, from plain text to PDF format.
3. I would ALSO like to be able to publish a spiral bound volume, and sell
it at a minimal cost.
4. I intend for this to be a "group" project. It's a daunting task for a
single person.


Twyst
=====================================
twysted mynd - for pov-ray news, reviews, and tutorials
http://twysted.net
e-mail: twy### [at] twystednet
=====================================

Post a reply to this message

I think it would be a great idea. Instead of sitting at the beach with 400+
pages of printed paper on a clipboard, i could have a cool bound book to
read while my kids are playing in the sand.

Twyst wrote in message <3681705a.0@news.povray.org>...
>I had a great idea recently...
>
>Do a "User Documentation Project"!
>
>I had the idea while noticing that the Pov-Ray docs, while complete, didn't
>go into much detail in certain cases, and there are people that DO know
>certain aspects very well. (John VanSickle comes to mind....).
>
>It seems to me that much of the manual could do with expanding on topics
>(Media is one example) and tutorials.
>
>So, here's the complete idea:
>1. With the pov-team's permission (please, can we?), rewrite the pov-ray
>docs.
>2. Make it available in a number of formats, from plain text to PDF format.
>3. I would ALSO like to be able to publish a spiral bound volume, and sell
>it at a minimal cost.
>4. I intend for this to be a "group" project. It's a daunting task for a
>single person.
>
>
>Twyst
>=====================================
>twysted mynd - for pov-ray news, reviews, and tutorials
>http://twysted.net
>e-mail: twy### [at] twystednet
>=====================================
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Seeing as I have recently been spending all my time experimenting with
features to figure them out, I would be happy to help write a "Practical
Guide to POVRay" or some such... (as opposed to theoretical) 
(Especially since I am on break ATM...)  Anyhow, let me know if you do
get enough support...

Steve
 

Twyst wrote:
> 
> I had a great idea recently...
> 
> Do a "User Documentation Project"!
> 
> I had the idea while noticing that the Pov-Ray docs, while complete, didn't
> go into much detail in certain cases, and there are people that DO know
> certain aspects very well. (John VanSickle comes to mind....).
> 
> It seems to me that much of the manual could do with expanding on topics
> (Media is one example) and tutorials.
> 
> So, here's the complete idea:
> 1. With the pov-team's permission (please, can we?), rewrite the pov-ray
> docs.
> 2. Make it available in a number of formats, from plain text to PDF format.
> 3. I would ALSO like to be able to publish a spiral bound volume, and sell
> it at a minimal cost.
> 4. I intend for this to be a "group" project. It's a daunting task for a
> single person.
> 
> Twyst
> =====================================
> twysted mynd - for pov-ray news, reviews, and tutorials
> http://twysted.net
> e-mail: twy### [at] twystednet
> =====================================

Post a reply to this message

Twyst wrote:
> 
> I had a great idea recently...
> 
> Do a "User Documentation Project"!

Hail to thee, oh bringer of ideas! I agree, a practical user guide would
be a great idea. 

My question (ofcourse) is: what should we put in it? A couple of
possible items:
- extensive coverage of all the features of POV-Ray;
- step-by-step tutorials on scene layout, lighing, etc.;
- BIG coverage on media.

Just my 2 euro worth.

Phoenix

--
http://users.telekabel.nl/eagle
----------------------------------------------------------------------
AFP Code 1.1 AC d%40 s%40:-- a- U+ R+ F++ h- P- OS-:%40 C+++ M- pp----
L+ c%40 B- Cn%40 PT+ Pu0@ 5++ X-- MT+ e%40 r- y* end     AFPurity: 78%

Post a reply to this message

Phoenix wrote:
> 
> Twyst wrote:
> >
> > I had a great idea recently...
> >
> > Do a "User Documentation Project"!
> 
> Hail to thee, oh bringer of ideas! I agree, a practical user guide would
> be a great idea.
> 
> My question (ofcourse) is: what should we put in it? A couple of
> possible items:
> - extensive coverage of all the features of POV-Ray;
> - step-by-step tutorials on scene layout, lighing, etc.;
> - BIG coverage on media.
> 
> Just my 2 euro worth.
> 
> Phoenix
> 
> --

I really think lighting tips would be immensily valuable. I have made so
many scenes that could have been atleast decent if the lighting was any
good.

Post a reply to this message

Do we need to rewrite the whole thing? Or would it be alright to create a supplement?
--just asking... I suppose if the intent is to give new users more assistance
with certain aspects of POV-Ray, rewriting the thing and keeping it with the
official binaries would be good, but it would still be easier to just gather
additions to the current manual. ...wouldn't it?

-Mark R.

Post a reply to this message

Can't argue with the usefulness of this. A number of tutorials are available
on the net (including, of course, your excellent page), but it would be nice
to have them bundled into one central archive.
If it's gonna be a group project, I'd be happy to donate my 3 ounces of of
experience (Is that a lot? Dunno, I'm used to the metric system :))

A couple of things that (in my opinion) need extensive coverage:
* media - probably most important, since the possibile applications are
innumerable and yet very difficult to achieve;
* lighting - imperative for a realistic/artistic scene, but also very
difficult to get right;
* loops, conditionals etc. - they can do so much more than strings of spheres,
if you know how;
* materials - again, very difficult to get right without knowing some tricks;
* radiosity - the settings are somewhat difficult to understand and it's
difficult to make a particular scene look good.

Margus

Post a reply to this message

Mark Radosevich wrote in message <3682FCEC.FC49E97D@randolph.spa.edu>...
>Do we need to rewrite the whole thing? Or would it be alright to create a
supplement?
>--just asking... I suppose if the intent is to give new users more
assistance
>with certain aspects of POV-Ray, rewriting the thing and keeping it with
the
>official binaries would be good, but it would still be easier to just
gather
>additions to the current manual. ...wouldn't it?
>
>-Mark R.


Well, it depends.
Some cases, the manual is very good..
(look at chapter 4)
In others, it's very sparse (Vectors, media, etc,etc)
Also, does anyone here actually use/understand the graphs they give (like
for the scattering types) -- Yes, it can be useful, but without a detailed
explanation ( in layman's terms, not mathematical) It's pretty useless to
me. I usually just skip right over them.
Renderings SHOWING the effects of the different settings would be far more
useful, imho.

It's also to avoid infringing on copyrights (as of this moment.. I haven't
heard "yes" or "no" about using the pov-ray documentation as a base)

Twyst

Post a reply to this message

Twyst <twy### [at] twystednet> wrote:
: 2. Make it available in a number of formats, from plain text to PDF format.

  Including povhelp format, of course.

-- 
main(i){char*_="BdsyFBThhHFBThhHFRz]NFTITQF|DJIFHQhhF";while(i=
*_++)for(;i>1;printf("%s",i-70?i&1?"[]":" ":(i=0,"\n")),i/=2);} /*- Warp. -*/

Post a reply to this message

My 2 centimes (until Dec 31, 1999)
I don't think it's necessary to rewrite the help file, which is very good on the
whole. However, I completely agree that there's a lot to do... Povray has become
so powerful that my lingering "fear" is to see it becoming more
programmer-oriented than user-oriented. But that's another debate...
Perhaps we can distinguish between what would be the enhancement of the current
help (basically a more practical tutorial on media, macros, and radiosity, that
could be integrated in the present help), and an "applied tips" section (how to
get better lighting, how to do realistic skies, water, how to make a tree with a
recursive macro etc.) fed by users.

Gilles Tran

Post a reply to this message

A friend of mine suggested that we try to cover the gap caused by the
absence of "Ray Tracing Creations" --- Maybe do a much updated version of
that. IE.. as Gilles Tran said - A supplemental volume, that while not
encompassing the pov-ray docs, DOES go through and expand on topics, like an
indepth on CSG, beziers, etc,etc...

If the Pov-Team says "Don't use the povray docs.." we might look at doing
this. Or maybe do this from the start... After all, at the moment, nothing
is set in stone. This is just tossing ideas around right now. =)

Twyst

Post a reply to this message

Twyst wrote:
> 
> A friend of mine suggested that we try to cover the gap caused by the
> absence of "Ray Tracing Creations" --- Maybe do a much updated version of
> that. IE.. as Gilles Tran said - A supplemental volume, that while not
> encompassing the pov-ray docs, DOES go through and expand on topics, like an
> indepth on CSG, beziers, etc,etc...
> 
> If the Pov-Team says "Don't use the povray docs.." we might look at doing
> this. Or maybe do this from the start... After all, at the moment, nothing
> is set in stone. This is just tossing ideas around right now. =)
> 
> Twyst

  I've kept quite on this waiting to see where it might go
opion wise and from what I have seen so far indicates leaving
the docs alone and writing a comprehensive Pov tutorial. A good
place to start would be based on the Pov VFAQ and of course the
areas already mentioned needing further clarification.
  It's my impression there is a lot left lacking in the docs but
there are also a lot of misconceptions about what the program will
and will not do. Perhaps this project could also touch on these
subjects as well. Having this supplement bundled with the program
might be a good idea but would need authorization from the Pov team
and they would have to agree with the content. That shouldn't be a
problem if it's well organized and comprehensive in it's approach.

Areas I feel need covered:

 1. Media
 2. Animation
 3. Radiosity
 4. The Texture and Pigment process
 5. Conditional statments
 6. What is in and what is out (the Pov surface normal)
 7. CSG operations - goes with above
 8. The camera statement - Seems simple now but there was a time ...
 9. When to use an external program, include file, etc...
10. How to convert the output from the above to useful syntax in Pov
11. Macros !!!

  That's just a few and my poor old fingers are getting tired already.

-- 
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 26 Dec 1998 18:30:55 -0800, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
>
>  I've kept quite on this waiting to see where it might go
>opion wise and from what I have seen so far indicates leaving
>the docs alone and writing a comprehensive Pov tutorial. A good
>place to start would be based on the Pov VFAQ and of course the
>areas already mentioned needing further clarification.
>  It's my impression there is a lot left lacking in the docs but
>there are also a lot of misconceptions about what the program will
>and will not do. Perhaps this project could also touch on these
>subjects as well. Having this supplement bundled with the program
>might be a good idea but would need authorization from the Pov team
>and they would have to agree with the content. That shouldn't be a
>problem if it's well organized and comprehensive in it's approach.
>
>Areas I feel need covered:
>
> 1. Media
> 2. Animation
> 3. Radiosity
> 4. The Texture and Pigment process
> 5. Conditional statments
> 6. What is in and what is out (the Pov surface normal)
> 7. CSG operations - goes with above
> 8. The camera statement - Seems simple now but there was a time ...
> 9. When to use an external program, include file, etc...
>10. How to convert the output from the above to useful syntax in Pov
>11. Macros !!!
>
>  That's just a few and my poor old fingers are getting tired already.

Like Ken I have held my fire on this subject, although it is one dear
to my heart. I like Ken's idea of a comprehensive Pov tutorial, but I
also think that the basic Pov documentation should be revised on a
regular basis.

In my experience there is no good computer documentation - just some
worse than others. (cf beer ;-) ) Clarity and conciseness are both
extremely important, but are often in conflict and one has to be
balanced against the other.  One of my pet Pov documentation gripes is
in the realm of CSG operations.  It took me ages and much
experimentation to find out how to use inverse (tremendously useful in
CSG).  Nevertheless I think the Pov documentation is very good,
considering it has all been done by voluntary effort (or perhaps
because of this.)

One of the great things about Pov is the ability it gives you to
experiment and quickly find out what works and what doesn't.   That
is, until you hit the buffers with media!  Unless you have an ultra
fast machine experimentation with media takes forever, as I have found
out trying to generate realistic smoke for my steam loco.  So a
comprehensive, well illustrated, tutorial on media would be a boon to
many of us.

In generating documentation (whether tutorial or reference) we are
unlikely to find a paragon who;
a) is an expert in all aspects of PovRay,
b) is able to write simple English well (we have many users who don't
have English as their first language) and
c) can envision all the difficulties a beginner may have.

With the net, however, we have a great opportunity to set up a group
who, communally, have all these virtues.  How about an "ego-less"
documentation group?  A povray.documentation category of this news
group would be a good start, perhaps split up into the sub-topics Ken
has listed.  This category should NOT be the place to post
documentation, but more of a discussion group.  Those who were
interested could take whichever section of the documentation they
thought they could improve, or add a tutorial to, and post their
efforts on their own web sites using html and then advise the group of
their efforts.  There are, of course, quite a few good such sites
already in existance, and perhaps the first step is to generate a
comprehensive list of these.

Participants would have to accept that others might be able to improve
on their uniquely wonderful efforts, but from what I have seen of this
group I don't think that will be a problem!

Sorry for the long posting!

David
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money." Samuel Johnson

dav### [at] cwcomnet
http://www.hamiltonite.mcmail.com

Post a reply to this message

David Wilkinson wrote:

> Like Ken I have held my fire on this subject, although it is one dear
> to my heart. I like Ken's idea of a comprehensive Pov tutorial, but I
> also think that the basic Pov documentation should be revised on a
> regular basis.

I agree.

However, as Ken so often and rightfully points out, there is a tremendous
wealth of information in the example files.  Just rendering each of them,
and then examining the source code, is in itself an excellent tutorial.
It is well worth the time.  But many of the questions posted by users
to these groups reveal that it is not a sufficiently exploited resource.

You can lead a horse to water....

Dan

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 27 Dec 1998 06:58:04 -0800, Dan Connelly <djc### [at] flashnet>
wrote:
>
>.... as Ken so often and rightfully points out, there is a tremendous
>wealth of information in the example files.  Just rendering each of them,
>and then examining the source code, is in itself an excellent tutorial.
>It is well worth the time.  But many of the questions posted by users
>to these groups reveal that it is not a sufficiently exploited resource.
>
>You can lead a horse to water....
>
>Dan

OK point taken, but  rendering the example files takes time and they
are not necessarily relevant to the problem you have in hand.  A
textual guide to the example files would help a great deal.

I have just rendered (again) all four of  the examples in scenes\CSG
and find that they emphasise interesting textures rather than clearly
showing the way that CSG operations can be used.  This just helps to
convince me that an objective look at on improving documentation would
be well worthwhile.

I don't want to criticise POV-Ray developers who are doing a
magnificent job - for which I am sincerely grateful. I just believe
that the POV-Ray community could help to make POV-Ray even more
accessible.  If, for instance, each contributed something of  their
own particular expertise, perhaps by a simplified and well commented
example, it would be a great help to many of us.

David
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money." Samuel Johnson

dav### [at] cwcomnet
http://www.hamiltonite.mcmail.com

Post a reply to this message

David Wilkinson wrote:
>
> I have just rendered (again) all four of  the examples in scenes\CSG
> and find that they emphasise interesting textures rather than clearly
> showing the way that CSG operations can be used.  This just helps to
> convince me that an objective look at on improving documentation would
> be well worthwhile.


Okay -- there is room for improvement.  But examples of CSG are
spread throughout the examples.  It is perhaps ironic that the
CSG directory may be below average in its use of CSG :).

You are correct that there is a strong emphasis in the examples
of simpler models with more complex texturing.  The "advanced" directory
is fancier, though -- excellent CSG work can be found in the
fish example and the chess example.

Still, these examples are not extremely well organized.  A coherent
framework might prove useful.

I will, however, bow out of this discussion, leaving it to those willing
to volunteer their time and effort to do the work.  I'd rather concentrate
my efforts elsewhere.

Dan

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 27 Dec 1998 14:16:08 GMT, dav### [at] mcmailcom (David
Wilkinson) wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Dec 1998 18:30:55 -0800, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
>With the net, however, we have a great opportunity to set up a group
>who, communally, have all these virtues.  How about an "ego-less"
>documentation group?  A povray.documentation category of this news
>group would be a good start, perhaps split up into the sub-topics Ken
>has listed. 

As a frustrated denizen of povray.programming, I have to say that
.documentation would be a singularly bad name for a group.  Worse
then .programming.  Unless you want to spend all your time answering
questions about the existing docs.

Post a reply to this message

Ronald L. Parker wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 27 Dec 1998 14:16:08 GMT, dav### [at] mcmailcom (David
> Wilkinson) wrote:
> 
> >On Sat, 26 Dec 1998 18:30:55 -0800, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
> >With the net, however, we have a great opportunity to set up a group
> >who, communally, have all these virtues.  How about an "ego-less"
> >documentation group?  A povray.documentation category of this news
> >group would be a good start, perhaps split up into the sub-topics Ken
> >has listed.
> 
> As a frustrated denizen of povray.programming, I have to say that
> .documentation would be a singularly bad name for a group.  Worse
> then .programming.  Unless you want to spend all your time answering
> questions about the existing docs.

  I agree. The two tutorial groups that are already in exsistence
would serve the purposed project well.

-- 
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote:
> 
> Areas I feel need covered:
> 
>  1. Media
>  2. Animation
>  3. Radiosity
>  4. The Texture and Pigment process
>  5. Conditional statments
>  6. What is in and what is out (the Pov surface normal)
>  7. CSG operations - goes with above
>  8. The camera statement - Seems simple now but there was a time ...
>  9. When to use an external program, include file, etc...
> 10. How to convert the output from the above to useful syntax in Pov
> 11. Macros !!!

Late breaking addition to the wish list:

12. Blobs !!!

-- 
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

Twyst wrote in message <3681705a.0@news.povray.org>...
>I had a great idea recently...
>
>Do a "User Documentation Project"!
>
>I had the idea while noticing that the Pov-Ray docs, while complete, didn't
>go into much detail in certain cases, and there are people that DO know
>certain aspects very well. (John VanSickle comes to mind....).
>
>It seems to me that much of the manual could do with expanding on topics
>(Media is one example) and tutorials.
>
>So, here's the complete idea:
>1. With the pov-team's permission (please, can we?), rewrite the pov-ray
>docs.
>2. Make it available in a number of formats, from plain text to PDF format.
>3. I would ALSO like to be able to publish a spiral bound volume, and sell
>it at a minimal cost.
>4. I intend for this to be a "group" project. It's a daunting task for a
>single person.




My bad. I forgot to mention that I'm not in this for the money. Any profits
that would come out of this, would A) go to pay for publishing, and B) go to
the pov-team, for stuff like webspace (Don't want another scare, now, do
we?)


Twyst

Post a reply to this message

Twyst wrote:
> My bad. I forgot to mention that I'm not in this for the money. Any profits
> that would come out of this, would A) go to pay for publishing, and B) go to
> the pov-team, for stuff like webspace (Don't want another scare, now, do
> we?)

And perhaps free copies to big contributors?
And even if not, count me in. I'd be happy to help with fact checking,
etc.

Phoenix

--
http://users.telekabel.nl/eagle
----------------------------------------------------------------------
AFP Code 1.1 AC d%40 s%40:-- a- U+ R+ F++ h- P- OS-:%40 C+++ M- pp----
L+ c%40 B- Cn%40 PT+ Pu0@ 5++ X-- MT+ e%40 r- y* end     AFPurity: 78%

Post a reply to this message

Twyst wrote:

>
> ... In others, it's very sparse (Vectors, media, etc,etc)
>

> Also, does anyone here actually use/understand the graphs they give (like
> for the scattering types)

Yup, i'm a physicist.   Such things I understand well in my sleep.   I'd be
happy to explain scattering, quilt patterns, and whatnot in non-math terms,
with plenty of pictures.


> -- Yes, it can be useful, but without a detailed
> explanation ( in layman's terms, not mathematical) It's pretty useless to
> me. I usually just skip right over them.
> Renderings SHOWING the effects of the different settings would be far more
> useful, imho.

An excellent idea.   The official POV docs show a nice series of images to
explain some things, but whoa! is it lacking in others.    For a long time
I've been wanting to make a table of superellipsoid settings and their
results.   I've been too lazy to actually do this, but now, Lance, you have
made the call for this Great Project, so now I will get real about this.

---
Daren Scot Wilson
dar### [at] pipelinecom
www.newcolor.com
"A ship...etc"  (just reinstalled linux, still haven't restored my email
signature file)

Post a reply to this message

Oh dang, I said "Lance" when I meant to say "Twyst" - I should break this bad
habit of having fifteen windows up, reading several threads of newsgroups,
emails, etc. all at the same time..   My poor little brain isn't as
multitasking as I thought...

Daren S. Wilson

Post a reply to this message

Dan Connelly wrote:

>
> Still, these examples are not extremely well organized.  A coherent
> framework might prove useful.

Being a geek, I find it natural to go spelunking through examples and
reference manuals, but even I often get stuck on something and want to
quickly look up the syntax, the correct spelling, etc.   So a
concept-oriented organization would be very useful.   Rending of existing
examples is not enough - a discussion of these examples is needed.  Yet I'd
skip that, as someone learning POV-Ray or an experienced artist needing to
use an unusual feature would want examples tuned to just that concept.
Combining too many concepts in one example makes it hard to distinguish them.

OTOH, this does not mean that every image that illustrates a concept should
be simple.   Example .pov files should be kept simple, but other images that
show specific concepts, for example, how superellipsoid shapes vary with its
parameters, should be made easy for the eyes to take in, and that may mean
using more than simple lighting and textures.

In short, i see the need for different kinds of images  (1) those that are
tutorial examples of POV-Ray coding, which must be kept simple, and (2) Those
that illustrate various concepts, whose .pov source are not to be shown to
the end user (unless they're very curious).

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote:

> > Areas I feel need covered:
> >
> >  1. Media
> >  2. Animation
> >  3. Radiosity
> >  4. The Texture and Pigment process
> >  5. Conditional statments
> >  6. What is in and what is out (the Pov surface normal)
> >  7. CSG operations - goes with above
> >  8. The camera statement - Seems simple now but there was a time ...
> >  9. When to use an external program, include file, etc...
> > 10. How to convert the output from the above to useful syntax in Pov
> > 11. Macros !!!
> 12. Blobs !!!

When I first began, I wanted:

* How to organize your .pov file  (there being many ways, of course, but
how hard it was to come up with even just one way!)
* pigments with nozero filter and transmit values - I had some weird
troubles with these, even after one year of use.  (Turned out they were
acting weird due to bugs I had in my old dispersion hacks.)
* A lighting tutorial.  Sure, the existing docs explain the light_source
syntax, but I haven't seen anything anywhere, well, one short web page,
on the artistic aspects of using lights.   Basic photographic lighting
techniques and some theater lighting tips would be so helpful to many
POV-Ray artists.
* Colors - choosing harmonious, pleasant colors comes natural to most
artists, but few can translate them mentally into RGB.  So let's add some
basic color theory, and how to tweak colors in a scene you're almost
happy with.


Daren Scot Wilson
dar### [at] pipelinecom
www.newcolor.com
Still w/o a  real .signature file....so dont' trust the spelling of my
email address.

Post a reply to this message

Twyst wrote:
> 
> I had a great idea recently...
> 
> Do a "User Documentation Project"!

Okay...
I think it's save to say there is an audience for such a project. I now
only have one question left:
    "When do we begin?"

Phoenix

--
http://users.telekabel.nl/eagle
----------------------------------------------------------------------
AFP Code 1.1 AC d%40 s%40:-- a- U++ R++ F++ h- P- OS-:%40 C++ M-
pp---- L+ c%40 B- Cn%40 PT++ Pu71@ 5++ X-- MT%40 e%40 r- y+ end

Post a reply to this message

Great Idea! I agree wholeheartedly. Even though I am not a regular contributor
to this group, I read it daily. Another project that I would like to do, and it
is related somewhat to your idea, is to create an archive of the problems and
solutions that appear in these newsgroups, with explanations on the why's and
how's of it all.

Going through this newsgroup isn't a problem, but I certainly don't want to
duplicate anybody's efforts. Has someone done this already?

Josh English
eng### [at] spiritonecom
www.spiritone.com/~english

Twyst wrote:

> I had a great idea recently...
>
> Do a "User Documentation Project"!
>
> I had the idea while noticing that the Pov-Ray docs, while complete, didn't
> go into much detail in certain cases, and there are people that DO know
> certain aspects very well. (John VanSickle comes to mind....).
>
> It seems to me that much of the manual could do with expanding on topics
> (Media is one example) and tutorials.
>
> So, here's the complete idea:
> 1. With the pov-team's permission (please, can we?), rewrite the pov-ray
> docs.
> 2. Make it available in a number of formats, from plain text to PDF format.
> 3. I would ALSO like to be able to publish a spiral bound volume, and sell
> it at a minimal cost.
> 4. I intend for this to be a "group" project. It's a daunting task for a
> single person.
>
> Twyst
> =====================================
> twysted mynd - for pov-ray news, reviews, and tutorials
> http://twysted.net
> e-mail: twy### [at] twystednet
> =====================================

Post a reply to this message

Josh English wrote:
> 
> Going through this newsgroup isn't a problem, but I certainly don't want to
> duplicate anybody's efforts. Has someone done this already?
> 
> Josh English

 Not an all encompasing faq but Warp has a list of very frequently
asked questions faq at:

http://www.students.tut.fi/~warp/povVFAQ.html

  It covers many of the basics but there is room for improvement.
Problem I see with compiling all of the questions and answeres
is that many are specific to a given scene and are not general
in content. To be effective the list must anticipate what's
going to be asked and have an easily indexed set of answers.
If it is overly comprehensive i.e. it has every question and
answer listed in these groups it would not only be huge it would
in all likelyhood become difficult to extract the specific
information a person is looking for.

 I'm not saying it wouldn't be a worth while project but I would
hate to be the one to have to weigh what should and should not be
included and how many of the answers are worth while or uninformed.
Probably take over an hour to do the job right.

-- 
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

dar### [at] pipelinecom wrote:
<snip>
> For a long time
> I've been wanting to make a table of superellipsoid settings and their
> results.   I've been too lazy to actually do this, but now, Lance, you have
> made the call for this Great Project, so now I will get real about this.

Take a look at this,
http://isg.cs.tcd.ie/kennedys/raytracing/gallery/superquadric.jpg
I think this is what you are looking for. The site is the some examples
from someones raytracing thesis.
-- 
Chris Maryan
mailto:cma### [at] geocitiescom
***
Will work for cash.
***
Email me if you are interested in donating
to the Chris Maryan needs money fund.
We will also accept donations to the Chris
needs a Pentium II or SGI workstation 
fund and the Chris needs a car fund.

Post a reply to this message

dar### [at] pipelinecom wrote in message <36896B55.D609E985@pipeline.com>...

>
>Yup, i'm a physicist.   Such things I understand well in my sleep.   I'd be
>happy to explain scattering, quilt patterns, and whatnot in non-math terms,
>with plenty of pictures.
>

Yay! (Twyst sneaks over, ties Daren up, and makes him tell all he knows)
>
>> -- Yes, it can be useful, but without a detailed
>> explanation ( in layman's terms, not mathematical) It's pretty useless to
>> me. I usually just skip right over them.
>> Renderings SHOWING the effects of the different settings would be far
more
>> useful, imho.
>
>An excellent idea.   The official POV docs show a nice series of images to
>explain some things, but whoa! is it lacking in others.    For a long time
>I've been wanting to make a table of superellipsoid settings and their
>results.   I've been too lazy to actually do this, but now, Lance, you have
>made the call for this Great Project, so now I will get real about this.

Go to, go to!

Oh ya. I'm not Lance. =)


>
>---
>Daren Scot Wilson
>dar### [at] pipelinecom
>www.newcolor.com
>"A ship...etc"  (just reinstalled linux, still haven't restored my email
>signature file)
>

Post a reply to this message

I'd certainly like to give it a shot. I couldn't really call it a FAQ, but
perhaps a cyclopedia of solutions.

And I've tried looking at the FAQ you refer to but I either get a 404 HTML error
or "Server not responding errors" Bummer. I think I will at least try. I would
like to give something back to the POV-Ray community.

Josh

Ken wrote:

> Josh English wrote:
> >
> > Going through this newsgroup isn't a problem, but I certainly don't want to
> > duplicate anybody's efforts. Has someone done this already?
> >
> > Josh English
>
>  Not an all encompasing faq but Warp has a list of very frequently
> asked questions faq at:
>
> http://www.students.tut.fi/~warp/povVFAQ.html
>
>   It covers many of the basics but there is room for improvement.
> Problem I see with compiling all of the questions and answeres
> is that many are specific to a given scene and are not general
> in content. To be effective the list must anticipate what's
> going to be asked and have an easily indexed set of answers.
> If it is overly comprehensive i.e. it has every question and
> answer listed in these groups it would not only be huge it would
> in all likelyhood become difficult to extract the specific
> information a person is looking for.
>
>  I'm not saying it wouldn't be a worth while project but I would
> hate to be the one to have to weigh what should and should not be
> included and how many of the answers are worth while or uninformed.
> Probably take over an hour to do the job right.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

Twyst wrote:
> dar### [at] pipelinecom wrote in message > >
> >Yup, i'm a physicist.   Such things I understand well in my sleep.   I'd be
> >happy to explain scattering, quilt patterns, and whatnot in non-math terms,
> >with plenty of pictures.
> >
> 
> Yay! (Twyst sneaks over, ties Daren up, and makes him tell all he knows)
> >

Arggggh!  Yowww!  OKAY!! OKAY!!   E equals M see cubed!  Really! 
Quantum theory is an elaborate hoax!!  Yow!!   It's all ray-traced!
Really! The whole universe!! Yowwww!

(I didn't say I was a *sane* physicist ;-)


>> ...
> Go to, go to!
> 
> Oh ya. I'm not Lance. =)

Yeah, yeah, but you guys look so similar...?  From now on my brain is
going to be single-tasking, no more composing three e-mail replies at
the same time...  It should be noted that my little faux pas was
performed in 1998, so I have yet to make my first mestake of 1999...
oops!   :-(


-- 
Daren Scot Wilson
dar### [at] pipelinecom 
www.newcolor.com
----
"A ship in a harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for"
                                            -- William Shedd

Post a reply to this message

Twyst wrote:

> dar### [at] pipelinecom wrote in message <36896B55.D609E985@pipeline.com>...
>
> >results.   I've been too lazy to actually do this, but now, Lance, you have
> >made the call for this Great Project, so now I will get real about this.
>
> Go to, go to!
>
> Oh ya. I'm not Lance. =)

Not with THAT attitude you aren't! :)

Simon
http://home.istar.ca/~sdevet

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:

> My 2 centimes (until Dec 31, 1999)
> I don't think it's necessary to rewrite the help file, which is very good on the
> whole. However, I completely agree that there's a lot to do... Povray has become
> so powerful that my lingering "fear" is to see it becoming more
> programmer-oriented than user-oriented. But that's another debate...
> Perhaps we can distinguish between what would be the enhancement of the current
> help (basically a more practical tutorial on media, macros, and radiosity, that
> could be integrated in the present help), and an "applied tips" section (how to
> get better lighting, how to do realistic skies, water, how to make a tree with a
> recursive macro etc.) fed by users.

I have been scared off long, long ago (about 8 minutes after downloading it,
actually :)

This is why I use Moray. And I, for one, would love to see more non coding
explanations of things like media. The manual gives code examples, but this doesn't
tell me much about what media is, and what it does. And more importantly, how to use
it properly.

Simon
http://home.istar.ca/~sdevet

Post a reply to this message

>It is perhaps ironic that the
>CSG directory may be below average in its use of CSG :).


Maybe that's because they wanted to keep the scenes simple
enough to make it possible for the reader of the source to
understand what is done.

>Still, these examples are not extremely well organized.  A
coherent
>framework might prove useful.

I think here's a good point. Go ahead and improve their
readability :)
It takes a lot of time to plow through all the include files
to find out how those 'advanced' scenes have been made.
Before you can learn from those, you have to have more than
a little knowledge of the pov code.
Well, maybe that's the reason the pov team placed those
scenes in the 'advanced' dir.. :)

Julius

Post a reply to this message