First off, hello. =)

Second, I'd like to know if the POV-team has officially oked the
project.

I myself am quite interested in what could result. This would finally
allow me to grasp blobs and media. It would benefit many others too. I
like the book idea. I think it should pay for itself. Profits should go
back into printing and updating. That way, it could be eternally
maintained, refined, and reprinted.

I want to contribute my translation skills to 'port' it to Spanish, when
finished, as I have several friends who are lost in this
English-speaking world. I am also contributing my rendering time for the
generation of images for the help file.

I want to comment how I feel it should be presented. I think that this
should be a sort of plug-in type system, where you download a basic help
file along with the binaries, and then succesively download
'help-packages' that expand on the central help file, which, in turn,
contains a link to each plug-in that activates as each one becomes
available. Each section should sufficiently cover each area and have an
example image wherever necessary and helpful. I think that it should
have beginner and advanced (for all mad-physicists out there)
explanations for each subject. This should be, above all, a labor of
love, offered to all freely.

Thank you. =)

http://members.xoom.com/TonyBennett
sno### [at] usanet

Post a reply to this message

Anthony Bennett wrote:
> 
> First off, hello. =)

Hello !
 
> Second, I'd like to know if the POV-team has officially oked the
> project.

Haven't heard a word.
 
> I myself am quite interested in what could result. This would finally
> allow me to grasp blobs and media. It would benefit many others too. I
> like the book idea. I think it should pay for itself. Profits should go
> back into printing and updating. That way, it could be eternally
> maintained, refined, and reprinted.

<snip>=<pins>

> Thank you. =)
Your Welcome ! 
> http://members.xoom.com/TonyBennett
> sno### [at] usanet

I see one big problem with a bound book version. Someone will
have to have ownership and authorship responsibility. With
this will go the costs of initial publishing and distribution.
If you get a commercial publisher to handle the printing and
distribution they are going to want to know what kind of market
there is for the product. They don't do it out of the kindness
of their hearts.  There may be a lot of Pov users but I doubt
there are enough willing to by the book to justify the printing
run.
  The only sensible method of distribution is via the net through
ftp and webpage downloads.

-- 
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

Perhaps a text book for university study:)  We have those cheaply bound
Lab manuals etc that are printed only for a single class...anyhow, it is
all speculation until we get to work/get approval.

Steve

Ken wrote:
> 
> Anthony Bennett wrote:
> >
> > First off, hello. =)
> 
> Hello !
> 
> > Second, I'd like to know if the POV-team has officially oked the
> > project.
> 
> Haven't heard a word.
> 
> > I myself am quite interested in what could result. This would finally
> > allow me to grasp blobs and media. It would benefit many others too. I
> > like the book idea. I think it should pay for itself. Profits should go
> > back into printing and updating. That way, it could be eternally
> > maintained, refined, and reprinted.
> 
> <snip>=<pins>
> 
> > Thank you. =)
> Your Welcome !
> > http://members.xoom.com/TonyBennett
> > sno### [at] usanet
> 
> I see one big problem with a bound book version. Someone will
> have to have ownership and authorship responsibility. With
> this will go the costs of initial publishing and distribution.
> If you get a commercial publisher to handle the printing and
> distribution they are going to want to know what kind of market
> there is for the product. They don't do it out of the kindness
> of their hearts.  There may be a lot of Pov users but I doubt
> there are enough willing to by the book to justify the printing
> run.
>   The only sensible method of distribution is via the net through
> ftp and webpage downloads.
> 
> --
> Ken Tyler
> 
> tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

Answers:
    Thanks to the repliers. Good points. Maybe we should just keep it on the
'net.
Questions:
    What does "<snip>=<pins>" mean? Also, what do you think of my other
ideas for the project?

Post a reply to this message

Anthony Bennett wrote:
> 
> Answers:
> Thanks to the repliers. Good points. Maybe we should just keep it on the net.

Wise decision !

> Questions:  What does "<snip>=<pins>" mean?

Pins is snip spelled backwards :)

> Also, what do you think of my other ideas for the project?

You have some valid ideas.

  My concern right now is who is going to coordinate this effort ?
Is this a project that even has a life right now ?
I believe it was Twyst that started the discussion but I also
know that he is very busy with several other projects right now.
So busy in fact that he is closing down twysted.net so counting
on him for leadership is probably out of the question.

  I am also unsure if the pov team even knows of the discussions
that have taken place so far. They cannot grant permission for
a project like this without first knowing about it.

I would like to say right now count me out as far as taking the
coordinator position. Don't want it thank you. I would be glad
to contribute what I can but don't want the responsibility
for the entire project.

Any volunteers ?

-- 
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

> Wise decision !

Thanks. =) Though, a book would still be a good thing.

> Pins is snip spelled backwards :)

Very funny. =)

> You have some valid ideas.

Yes!

>   My concern right now is who is going to coordinate this effort ?

I know I'm not qualified. And you don't want to do it. I have noticed Twyst is very
busy. I don't know who could do it.

> Is this a project that even has a life right now ?

Definitely. Even if only you and I are interested. How about we do it? (Yeah,
right).

>   I am also unsure if the pov team even knows of the discussions
> that have taken place so far. They cannot grant permission for
> a project like this without first knowing about it.

How can we contact them? I haven't even gotten them to answer my e-mails. =(

Post a reply to this message

Anthony Bennett wrote:

> >   I am also unsure if the pov team even knows of the discussions
> > that have taken place so far. They cannot grant permission for
> > a project like this without first knowing about it.
> 
> How can we contact them? I haven't even gotten them to answer my e-mails. =(

Well Thorsten Froehlich seems to read the majority of the messages posted
here. Perhaps he would like to comment on this ?

-- 
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

In article <36B### [at] pacbellnet> , Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet>  
wrote:

> Well Thorsten Froehlich seems to read the majority of the messages posted
> here. Perhaps he would like to comment on this ?

There has been some discussion (about *perhaps* somehow handing the tutorial
doc section over to users in the future), I suggest to contact Chris Young
(again) at C_Y### [at] compuservecom (just remind him (friendly) if you sent an
e-mail some time ago, I think he gets lots of e-mails...) or better: Leave a
message in the CompuServe POVRAY forum (if you have CSi access).

NOTE: This is *no* official POV-Team statement!!!


    Thorsten


BTW, I am not the only one in the team reading the messages! (Hi Alan!)


____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: Tho### [at] csicom

I am a member of the POV-Ray Team.
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://www.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
>> BTW, I am not the only one in the team reading the messages! (Hi Alan!)

  <lurking>...

  re: User docs and tutorials - haven't had further discussions since
09-Jan-1999. Chris Young's priority is bug fixes at the current time, AFAIK.
One concern the Team had was to attempt to keep all future docs/tutorials
cross-platform, i.e. try to eliminate platform-specific references such as a
certain Mac button, the Windows 95/98 Registry, the use of Moray, etc.

  The last I heard was that Twyst was going to coordinate the User docs
effort but according to recent posts in this thread this may have changed
due to other projects he is working on. IMO, first and foremost for this
work to proceed, it requires one person to step up to the plate and assume
coordinator duties otherwise I see and endless number of newsgroup and
e-mail posts concerning duplication of tutorials already written by others.
The project coordinator should probably be the main contact with Chris Young
or the POV-Team via e-mail (although some of us read the newsgroups fairly
regularly).

respectfully,
- Alan

Post a reply to this message

Ok. I was waiting to hear back from Chris Young. Here's his response ( from
a variety of posts ) (reposted with permission)


I had e-mailed him a while ago , and sent him the original idea. This is the
first response:

/*--- Quote from 12/28/1998 ---*/
While I wouldn't swear that the reference section is perfect, I personally
spent a lot of time rewriting and updating the reference sections.  All of
the syntax definitions were polished to the same standards and notations as
Ray Tracing Creations.  For the time being I'd prefer to keep the reference
sections entirely "in house".

<Ka - Snip!>

I'm not sure I like the idea of outsiders selling printed docs even at cost.
The issue of what is or is not profit becomes nasty.  Many movie actors have
sued studios for percentage points of films that cost $50 million, grossed
$200 million but had no "profit".  Linux allows damn near anybody to reprint
their docs even for profit and that's crazy.  I'm not going to spend hours
of volunteer time writing POV-Ray docs and have somebody else make money on
it.  I'm not sure how the team will feel about this.  My opinion is that the
more you distance yourself from the endorsement of the team, the better
chance you have and doing a commercial deal.  The closer you are, the more
we'll insist its free.  So if its "Twyst's Guide to POV-Ray" and you wrote
most or all of it, you're in good shape.  If its "The Official POV-Ray 3.1
Tutorial" and is just a touch-up of the current tutorial, its likely gotta
stay freeware.

The only commercial deals we have really endorsed are two items:the RTC
books, and the Official/IRTC CDs.  The key reasons are: A) They were
initiated and managed by long standing team members whom we know and trust.
B) They had contributed so much to the team that if anyone deserved to make
some money then they did. C) They agreed to put some of the profit back into
the team.  D) They put sufficient effort into the money-making venture that
they really EARNED the money and they weren't making money off our freeware.

So anyway, I think if you hadn't turned up volunteering, we'd have been
recruiting someone to help with tutorials anyway.  I think we can work
something out.  But 75% of the above information is just my opinion.  Its
all really up to the team to decide.  As you'll see in a day or so, the team
has a full agenda coming up.  It may be a day or two until we're ready to
even discuss this.  We all kinda agreed to take a break until after New
Years.
/*--- End Quote ---*/

Then, Jan 22 ( I didn't find out till yesterday, BTW -- shows how often I
check my CompuSmurf mail ), Chris wrote:

       Sorry its taken so long to get back to you but I've been very busy
with POV & non-POV work lately.
        The team has approved the idea of splitting our docs into separate
tutorial and reference sections.  We are giving you permission to rewrite
and expand our existing tutorial and to continue to call it an official
POV-Team product.  You may recruit help as needed.  We'll work to keep you
posted on progress on 3.5 so that you can add its features as they become
finalized.

        Two editorial requests have come up.  Although we want to give you
freedom to develop this as you wish, I hope you'll give this serious
consideration.
        1) The team feels strongly that the tutorial be 100% generic and
have no platform-specific material at all.  For example the section on
bicubic_patch is based entirely on using Moray and is highly Windows/MS-Dos
specific.  That needs to be eliminated.  Also examples involving utilities
such as DTA, QuickTime, or other platform-specific tools should be avoided.
As a separate project, you might develop platform-specific tutorials or
faq's but do not scatter lots of platform-specific content throughout the
main tutorials.  Even suggestions like "Render at 320x240 then when
finished, do 640x480" are somewhat platform-specific.  Say low res or high
res and even then, such advice better belongs in some general stratigy
section than scattered throughout the text.

        2) This is just my personal feeling... Our original tutorial started
assuming you knew nothing.  It never used a feature before it had been
explained.  You don't make example #1 be a sphere with a phong highlight
unless you introduced the finish{} statement first.  You avoid saying "do
this, this, and this because I say so and I'll explain later."  You say here
is a coordinate system.  This is a vector.  Use it to locate a sphere.  Then
locate a camera (use location, angle, look_at only).  Then a light source.
Don't try to teach it all at once.  Unfortunately for 3.0 we decided every
topic needed a tutorial (not a bad idea) and that the outline of the
tutorial exactly match the outline of the reference section (a VERY BAD
IDEA).  The thought was that a user wanted a tutorial on say...
height_fields.  They had a choice of reference or tutoral to look at and it
was organized the same way.  For current users learning a new feature,
perhaps such stand-alone, one-topic tutorials are ok.  But for novices it
sucks.  You don't organize tutorials the same way you do a reference.
Tutorials must flow.  Our current tutorial teaches bicubic_patch before box
& cone because it comes first alphabetically!  That's stupid!  As Dennis
Miller says after his ranting: "Of course that's just my opinion -- I could
be wrong."
/*-- End Quote --*/

As Well. Ken wrote:

My concern right now is who is going to coordinate this effort ?
Is this a project that even has a life right now ?
I believe it was Twyst that started the discussion but I also
know that he is very busy with several other projects right now.
So busy in fact that he is closing down twysted.net so counting
on him for leadership is probably out of the question.
/* --- End Quote ---*/

This is true. I'm having serious brainmelt at the moment. But after the new
povray.org site is done (soon! soon!) I'll have more free time. I can
certainly set up a website for this -- but I suck at coordination. I'll give
it a whack -- In fact, I had an idea -- a web based job tracking system. But
it's going to have to be on hold for a little while.

Synopsis:
It's been okayed by the pov-team, and as long as we stay within these
guidelines, it will be endorsed by the pov-team. =)

--
Twy### [at] twystednet
------------------------------------------------------------
A Social Life?  Where do I download that from?
------------------------------------------------------------

Post a reply to this message

hey, now this is great..
I can't apply as coordinator, because of my current way of life, i'd _really_ suck at
it.
(I generally suck on everything that needs a long term dediaction and work...)

as for the system, a web-based data-base??
Someone makes a list over what is needed...(Coordinatoooooor....) and then put that
online, linking to a cgi for data-transfer, then those who feel FORCED to do it, write
some part and upload it...

Well, it's impractical, it cuts off some of the "flow" feeling of writing a
tutorial...
But, It's an idea...

My two �re.

//Spider

Post a reply to this message

When I first downloaded POV, I got to the bicubic patch section of the tutorial,
was utterly and totally confused, put it aside and let it sit idle for around
6 months..... I almost purged it from my system until I entered IRTC
with Ray Dream Studio and received several comments that I should have
used POV-Ray instead.  So instead of following tutorials, I tried
to reproduce my Ray Dream Studio image in POV by using the reference section,
realized how elegent and simple it was, and became hooked.  But the tutorial
almost lost me..... I came very close to uninstalling it from my disk.

Dan

> Tutorials must flow.  Our current tutorial teaches bicubic_patch before box
> & cone because it comes first alphabetically!  That's stupid!


-- 
http://www.flash.net/~djconnel/

Post a reply to this message

I skipped that section. :)

Actually, that's not entirely true.  First I drew out some patches on
grid paper, tried to input it by hand, rendered it...then skipped that
section.

-Mike

Dan Connelly wrote:
> 
> When I first downloaded POV, I got to the bicubic patch section of the tutorial,
> was utterly and totally confused, put it aside and let it sit idle for around
> 6 months..... I almost purged it from my system until I entered IRTC
> with Ray Dream Studio and received several comments that I should have
> used POV-Ray instead.  So instead of following tutorials, I tried
> to reproduce my Ray Dream Studio image in POV by using the reference section,
> realized how elegent and simple it was, and became hooked.  But the tutorial
> almost lost me..... I came very close to uninstalling it from my disk.
> 
> Dan
> 
> > Tutorials must flow.  Our current tutorial teaches bicubic_patch before box
> > & cone because it comes first alphabetically!  That's stupid!
> 
> --
> http://www.flash.net/~djconnel/

Post a reply to this message

hehe, am I the only one who took a look at the jibberish in the file, gave up, and
opened
te example files in a normal text-editor, trying to find out what was what ?
Well, once that was passed, I had the basics on it, I went into the doc's and read all
of
the things I had caught, learning the tips and trix on the way :-)

//Spider

Mike wrote:
> 
> I skipped that section. :)
> 
> Actually, that's not entirely true.  First I drew out some patches on
> grid paper, tried to input it by hand, rendered it...then skipped that
> section.
> 
> -Mike
> 
> Dan Connelly wrote:
> >
> > When I first downloaded POV, I got to the bicubic patch section of the tutorial,
> > was utterly and totally confused, put it aside and let it sit idle for around
> > 6 months..... I almost purged it from my system until I entered IRTC
> > with Ray Dream Studio and received several comments that I should have
> > used POV-Ray instead.  So instead of following tutorials, I tried
> > to reproduce my Ray Dream Studio image in POV by using the reference section,
> > realized how elegent and simple it was, and became hooked.  But the tutorial
> > almost lost me..... I came very close to uninstalling it from my disk.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > > Tutorials must flow.  Our current tutorial teaches bicubic_patch before box
> > > & cone because it comes first alphabetically!  That's stupid!
> >
> > --
> > http://www.flash.net/~djconnel/

Post a reply to this message

Spider wrote:
> 
> hehe, am I the only one who took a look at the jibberish in the file, gave up, and
opened
> te example files in a normal text-editor, trying to find out what was what ?
> Well, once that was passed, I had the basics on it, I went into the doc's and read
all of
> the things I had caught, learning the tips and trix on the way :-)
> 
> //Spider
> 
> Mike wrote:
> >
> > I skipped that section. :)
> >
> > Actually, that's not entirely true.  First I drew out some patches on
> > grid paper, tried to input it by hand, rendered it...then skipped that
> > section.
> >
> > -Mike
> >
> > Dan Connelly wrote:
> > >
> > > When I first downloaded POV, I got to the bicubic patch section of the tutorial,
> > > was utterly and totally confused, put it aside and let it sit idle for around
> > > 6 months..... I almost purged it from my system until I entered IRTC
> > > with Ray Dream Studio and received several comments that I should have
> > > used POV-Ray instead.  So instead of following tutorials, I tried
> > > to reproduce my Ray Dream Studio image in POV by using the reference section,
> > > realized how elegent and simple it was, and became hooked.  But the tutorial
> > > almost lost me..... I came very close to uninstalling it from my disk.
> > >
> > > Dan
> > >
> > > > Tutorials must flow.  Our current tutorial teaches bicubic_patch before box
> > > > & cone because it comes first alphabetically!  That's stupid!
> > >
> > > --
> > > http://www.flash.net/~djconnel/

I learned how to use Pov before the documentation even had all
of those pretty, little pictures. In fact you folks would
get a real kick out of reading the docs for DKBTrace and Pov v1.0.
Now those were the days - Not !

-- 
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

> Now those were the days - Not !
Great, then you can tell all of us what a great job we do compared to POV 1.0 !!!

//Spider

Post a reply to this message

Don't be too sure about this :).

Some of the old stuff is pretty darn good.

Dan

Spider wrote:
> 
> > Now those were the days - Not !
> Great, then you can tell all of us what a great job we do compared to POV 1.0 !!!
> 
> //Spider

-- 
http://www.flash.net/~djconnel/

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote:
> I learned how to use Pov before the documentation even had all
> of those pretty, little pictures. In fact you folks would
> get a real kick out of reading the docs for DKBTrace and Pov v1.0.
> Now those were the days - Not !

Oh !  I remember myself in 1994, printing the plain text of POV 2.1
docs. I made a mistake with the sheets, so I had the odd pages printed
in the back of the even pages, upside-down, and in reverse order !!
To diminish the thickness of the thing, I used a 7-point font, and was
spending hours flipping the binded "manual", while practicing the 
left-hand-coordinates-aerobics !

Cheers,
Fabien.

Post a reply to this message

I must agree. If you are familiar with the Pov v2.2 docs you can
see areas of the v3.0x docs that have not changed one word.
The explanations were as good then as they are (or are not) now.
I must admit though that once I learned how to use the 3.0x docs,
with the context sensitive help, it was a real joy to use and
seriously speed up the access time to the right information.
I'm still a little taken aback at the new Doc's format but life
goes on.

Ken

Dan Connelly wrote:
> 
> Don't be too sure about this :).
> 
> Some of the old stuff is pretty darn good.
> 
> Dan
> 
> Spider wrote:
> >
> > > Now those were the days - Not !
> > Great, then you can tell all of us what a great job we do compared to POV 1.0 !!!
> >
> > //Spider
> 
> --
> http://www.flash.net/~djconnel/

-- 
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

And my mistake...
I printed out the POV 3.02 DOC, pictures and all, but forgot to check
the Collate box and ended up with about 375 sheets. Put them in a 3 inch
3-ring binder. The tough part was hole-punching, about 10 sheets at a
time.

Fabien Mosen wrote:
> 
> Oh !  I remember myself in 1994, printing the plain text of POV 2.1
> docs. I made a mistake with the sheets, so I had the odd pages printed
> in the back of the even pages, upside-down, and in reverse order !!
> To diminish the thickness of the thing, I used a 7-point font, and was
> spending hours flipping the binded "manual", while practicing the
> left-hand-coordinates-aerobics !
> 
> Cheers,
> Fabien.

-- 
 omniVERSE: beyond the universe
  http://members.aol.com/inversez/POVring.htm
=Bob

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 19:42:08 -0800, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:

>I learned how to use Pov before the documentation even had all
>of those pretty, little pictures. In fact you folks would
>get a real kick out of reading the docs for DKBTrace and Pov v1.0.
>Now those were the days - Not !

I'm with Ken.  Upon reading this thread, I was trying to remember how
I learned POV, but it was so long ago it's all just a hazy memory.

Post a reply to this message

I remember reading the 147 pages, 7-point font POV 1.0 docs by the light
of an oil lamp in my 1993 underground cave. I had deleted all the blank
lines and some stuff (credits...) with Word 5 to save papyrus. I never
had to print any POV docs after that.
Gilles Tran

"Ronald L. Parker" wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 19:42:08 -0800, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
>
> >I learned how to use Pov before the documentation even had all
> >of those pretty, little pictures. In fact you folks would
> >get a real kick out of reading the docs for DKBTrace and Pov v1.0.
> >Now those were the days - Not !
>
> I'm with Ken.  Upon reading this thread, I was trying to remember how
> I learned POV, but it was so long ago it's all just a hazy memory.

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:
> 
> I remember reading the 147 pages, 7-point font POV 1.0 docs by the light
> of an oil lamp in my 1993 underground cave. I had deleted all the blank
> lines and some stuff (credits...) with Word 5 to save papyrus. I never
> had to print any POV docs after that.
> Gilles Tran
 
And I thought I was a lone rebel when I edited the 2.2 doc's for
space and content. Don't tell anybody but I even rearranged some
of the sections for continuity. Shhhh !

-- 
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 30 Jan 1999 17:14:20 +0100, Gilles Tran <tra### [at] inapginrafr>
wrote:

>I remember reading the 147 pages, 7-point font POV 1.0 docs by the light
>of an oil lamp in my 1993 underground cave. I had deleted all the blank
>lines and some stuff (credits...) with Word 5 to save papyrus. I never
>had to print any POV docs after that.
>Gilles Tran

I remember doing the same thing - deleting all the blank lines,
setting the point size to 6 or 7, and squeezing it into three
columns.  I don't remember how many pages it was, but that was
the POV 2.2 docs, so they were a bit smaller.  After that, I 
found a copy of RTC in the local bookstore and bought it.  That 
was easily the best way ever to learn POV-Ray - lots of pictures,
text, and code samples, plus the reference section at the back,
and all written by people who really know their stuff.  I still
have it.  I've got a friend I'm working on getting hooked on POV 
and I'll probably lend it to her to get started with.

Post a reply to this message

From the benchmarks I've seen for versions prior to 2.2, it would seem
there was plenty of time to read the docs ( and War and Peace, Moby
Dick, some Encyclopedias...)

-Mike

Ken wrote:
> 
> Spider wrote:
> >
> > hehe, am I the only one who took a look at the jibberish in the file, gave up, and
opened
> > te example files in a normal text-editor, trying to find out what was what ?
> > Well, once that was passed, I had the basics on it, I went into the doc's and read
all of
> > the things I had caught, learning the tips and trix on the way :-)
> >
> > //Spider
> >
> > Mike wrote:
> > >
> > > I skipped that section. :)
> > >
> > > Actually, that's not entirely true.  First I drew out some patches on
> > > grid paper, tried to input it by hand, rendered it...then skipped that
> > > section.
> > >
> > > -Mike
> > >
> > > Dan Connelly wrote:
> > > >
> > > > When I first downloaded POV, I got to the bicubic patch section of the
tutorial,
> > > > was utterly and totally confused, put it aside and let it sit idle for around
> > > > 6 months..... I almost purged it from my system until I entered IRTC
> > > > with Ray Dream Studio and received several comments that I should have
> > > > used POV-Ray instead.  So instead of following tutorials, I tried
> > > > to reproduce my Ray Dream Studio image in POV by using the reference section,
> > > > realized how elegent and simple it was, and became hooked.  But the tutorial
> > > > almost lost me..... I came very close to uninstalling it from my disk.
> > > >
> > > > Dan
> > > >
> > > > > Tutorials must flow.  Our current tutorial teaches bicubic_patch before box
> > > > > & cone because it comes first alphabetically!  That's stupid!
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > http://www.flash.net/~djconnel/
> 
> I learned how to use Pov before the documentation even had all
> of those pretty, little pictures. In fact you folks would
> get a real kick out of reading the docs for DKBTrace and Pov v1.0.
> Now those were the days - Not !
> 
> --
> Ken Tyler
> 
> tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

Mike wrote:
> 
> From the benchmarks I've seen for versions prior to 2.2, it would seem
> there was plenty of time to read the docs ( and War and Peace, Moby
> Dick, some Encyclopedias...)
> 
> -Mike

  I'm not sure that's an altogether fair assesment. You
have to remember a 386-33 was a fast machine when v2.2 was
current. I still have v2.2 on my system and use it a couple
of times a month. It is not that slow and believe it or not
it handles large triangle files better than 3.1 does.
Just before I logged on I was trying to get a 4 meg mesh
file to render. I kept getting syntax errors up the wazoo.

  I think there is a problem with the way Pov reads the scene
out of the memory buffer, once the first run is executed,
instead of off of the disk for each render. I tried repeatedly
to correct the phantom errors, saved the file, hit the render
button and the corrected(?)syntax problem reappeared. The
funny part is there is no real syntax problem in the scene.
Pov just thinks there is. For some reason I don't think it
is updating the memory buffer when the file is saved to
disk. It only occurs on large files but it is frustrating.

Anyway I gave up, changed the mesh to a union, changed a
couple of minor version problems and fired up 2.2.

 Guess what !

After fixing two degenrate triangles it rendered immediatly
without so much as a hiccup <hic !>.

***And*** the render time was entirely acceptable.

I guess dos handles memory better than windows does :)

In conclusion I disagree with your statement.

-- 
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

I said prior to 2.2, which introduced bounding as I understand.  This is
part of the article in Ray Tracing News that I based my impression on:

...The POV developers sent me a beta of POVRAY 2.0 so that the snail's
pace of 1.0 could be (massively) improved...

Timings - default size SPD databases (i.e. up to 10,000 objects in a
scene), time in seconds on HP 720 workstation, optimized and gprof
profiled code. Includes time to read in the ASCII data file and set up.
Note that profiling slows down the execution times, so real times would
be somewhat faster in all cases (about 30%); plus, the profiler itself
is good to +-10%. Also, these timings are purely for this machine -
results will vary considerably depending on the platform (see David
Hook's article). Now that I've explained why these are useless, here
goes:  

         	balls   gears   mount   rings   teapot  tetra   tree

Art/Vort         478    1315     239     595      235     84     381
Art/Vort +float  415    1129     206     501      203     72     327
Rayshade w/tweak 188     360     174     364      145     61     163
Rayshade w/grid 1107     412     174     382      145     61    1915
Radiance         289     248     165     601      150     42     197
Bob              402     747     230     831      245     50     266
RTrace           664    1481     813    1343      341    153     372
RTrace c6 m0     652    1428     811    1301      331    155     363
POV 2.0beta+     588    1895     668    1113      306     56     542
POV 1.0        191000 1775000  409000  260000    45000  31000  250000

Here are timing ratios (i.e. 1 is the fastest time for a given test,
with the other timings normalized to this value): 

		balls   gears   mount   rings   teapot  tetra   tree

Art/Vort         2.54    5.30    1.45    1.63    1.62    2.00    2.34
Art/Vort +float  2.21    4.55    1.25    1.38    1.40    1.71    2.01
Rayshade w/tweak  1      1.45    1.05     1       1      1.45     1
Rayshade w/grid  5.89    1.66    1.05    1.05     1      1.45   11.75
Radiance         1.54     1       1      1.65    1.03     1      1.21
Bob              2.14    3.01    1.39    2.28    1.69    1.19    1.63
RTrace           3.53    5.97    4.93    3.69    2.35    3.64    2.28
RTrace c6 m0     3.47    5.76    4.92    3.57    2.28    3.69    2.23
POV 2.0beta+     3.13    7.64    4.05    3.06    2.11    1.33    3.33
POV 1.0       1015.96 7157.26 2478.79  714.29  310.34  738.10 1533.74

...POV 2.0 has an efficiency scheme built in and so is comparable to the
others, so don't get freaked out by the POV 1.0 performance numbers. 

-Mike

Ken wrote:
> 
> Mike wrote:
> >
> > From the benchmarks I've seen for versions prior to 2.2, it would seem
> > there was plenty of time to read the docs ( and War and Peace, Moby
> > Dick, some Encyclopedias...)
> >
> > -Mike
> 
>   I'm not sure that's an altogether fair assesment. You
> have to remember a 386-33 was a fast machine when v2.2 was
> current. I still have v2.2 on my system and use it a couple
> of times a month. It is not that slow and believe it or not
> it handles large triangle files better than 3.1 does.
> Just before I logged on I was trying to get a 4 meg mesh
> file to render. I kept getting syntax errors up the wazoo.
> 
>   I think there is a problem with the way Pov reads the scene
> out of the memory buffer, once the first run is executed,
> instead of off of the disk for each render. I tried repeatedly
> to correct the phantom errors, saved the file, hit the render
> button and the corrected(?)syntax problem reappeared. The
> funny part is there is no real syntax problem in the scene.
> Pov just thinks there is. For some reason I don't think it
> is updating the memory buffer when the file is saved to
> disk. It only occurs on large files but it is frustrating.
> 
> Anyway I gave up, changed the mesh to a union, changed a
> couple of minor version problems and fired up 2.2.
> 
>  Guess what !
> 
> After fixing two degenrate triangles it rendered immediatly
> without so much as a hiccup <hic !>.
> 
> ***And*** the render time was entirely acceptable.
> 
> I guess dos handles memory better than windows does :)
> 
> In conclusion I disagree with your statement.
> 
> --
> Ken Tyler
> 
> tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message