 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I agree with what you said except for:
> Translucency is just filtered opacity really.
Because it isn't... remember translucency is depth dependant...
--
Lance.
---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
Colorblind - http://www.fortunecity.com/skyscraper/parallax/359/colorblind
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lance Birch wrote in message <3715eac5.0@news.povray.org>...
>I agree with what you said except for:
>
>> Translucency is just filtered opacity really.
>
>Because it isn't... remember translucency is depth dependant...
>
Filter and transmit would be, too, in RL. In POV you just have to add light
attenuation to the object for this to happen.
Margus
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
True, but the double_sidedness would be a fast trick. Depth could be
simulated with nothing more that a varied illumination from the other side.
What I'm thinking of is like a leaf or a curtain. If there was a way to
specify how much of the illuminated side of the surface shows through, things
like the viens in a leaf or the weave in cloth could be simulated.
Perhaps an opacity_map could be specified within double_sided {} :)
-Mike
Lance Birch wrote:
> I agree with what you said except for:
>
> > Translucency is just filtered opacity really.
>
> Because it isn't... remember translucency is depth dependant...
>
> --
> Lance.
>
> ---
> For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
> The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
> For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
> Colorblind - http://www.fortunecity.com/skyscraper/parallax/359/colorblind
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Adding new objects, assuming you can provide the necessary functionality
> for them, is simplicity itself.
As I see it, it's not the fact the POV in written in
C that makes it troublesome to provide a patch. It's
the monolithic parser - you can't add parsing functionality
without hitting the code for every other type of
primitive. I'd like to see some work towards
modularising the parser. I think it can be done...
--
Nigel Stewart (nig### [at] eisa netau) http://www.eisa.net.au/~nigels/
Postgrad Research Student, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
All extremists should be taken out and shot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13 Apr 1999 16:55:57 -0500, par### [at] my-dejanewscom (Ron Parker)
wrote:
[snip]
>Finally, there are patches like my motion-blur patch that change lots of
>fundamental data structures. Modularity won't help much there.
>
Any chance of coercing you into putting your web site in a sig line?
I'm going to have to start searching for this motion-blur patch and
docs.. Hmm, will check Twyst's site first...
Cheers,
Cliff Bowman
Why not pay my 3D Dr Who site a visit at
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/7855/
PS change ".duffnet" to ".net" if replying via e-mail
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Apr 1999 00:20:46 -0400, Nathan Kopp <Nat### [at] Koppcom>
wrote:
>For all of you who dislike the concept of object oriened POV script, I think
>one thing should be clarified. At least some of us are proposting a semi-
>object oriented language... where we implement the encapsulation and (in a
>wierd way) inheritence, but NOT data hiding. That means you can access
>parts of an object but you don't have to do so through methods.
>
>The main reason I want to do this is because I think that for POV go get
>better for animation, it needs to be able to do an entire animation from
>a single script WITHOUT RE-PARSING BETWEEN FRAMES!!!!!
>
Oh boy. Calms down to avoid calling Nathan "God". OK, I'm ready.
You know, that idea isn't half bad. I could seriously make use of that
:)
Cheers,
Cliff Bowman
Why not pay my 3D Dr Who site a visit at
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/7855/
PS change ".duffnet" to ".net" if replying via e-mail
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 12 May 1999 18:26:43 GMT, Cliff Bowman wrote:
>On 13 Apr 1999 16:55:57 -0500, par### [at] my-dejanewscom (Ron Parker)
>wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>Finally, there are patches like my motion-blur patch that change lots of
>>fundamental data structures. Modularity won't help much there.
>>
>Any chance of coercing you into putting your web site in a sig line?
>I'm going to have to start searching for this motion-blur patch and
>docs.. Hmm, will check Twyst's site first...
You'll find it there. It's not on my website anyway. But before you
can convince me to put my web site in a sig line, you'll have to convince
me to have a sig line.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12 May 1999 17:40:35 -0500, par### [at] fwicom (Ron Parker) wrote:
>On Wed, 12 May 1999 18:26:43 GMT, Cliff Bowman wrote:
>>On 13 Apr 1999 16:55:57 -0500, par### [at] my-dejanewscom (Ron Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
[snip]
>>Any chance of coercing you into putting your web site in a sig line?
>>I'm going to have to start searching for this motion-blur patch and
>>docs.. Hmm, will check Twyst's site first...
>
>You'll find it there. It's not on my website anyway. But before you
>can convince me to put my web site in a sig line, you'll have to convince
>me to have a sig line.
Well - I was kind of hoping for a two-in one deal. You know, get you
to use your web site *as* your sig line.
Any news on when the 3.1e sources might be avilable for "patchers" to
tack their code into? Not that I'm finding 3.1a and 3.1e render scenes
differently (not much they don't!)
Cheers,
Cliff Bowman
Why not pay my 3D Dr Who site a visit at
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/7855/
PS change ".duffnet" to ".net" if replying via e-mail
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nathan Kopp <Nat### [at] Koppcom> wrote in message
news:370CBD92.582CBC9E@Kopp.com...
>
> >
> > Instead of multiple unique objects to handle, it's suggested to use a
> > single consistent object model for everything from geometry to
> > textures.
>
> I disagree. I think a distinction must be made between objects,
materials,
> pigments, finishes, ...
>
> Looking at it from OO again, "a sphere HAS A material" is true, not
> "a sphere IS A material". However, "a sphere IS A object" would be
> correct.
>
This true, but it's also valid to say :
"a sphere IS_A scene_element"
"a material IS_A scene_element"
and you then can have :
"a sphere HAS_A material"
Just because two objects are derived from the same root object it
doesn't necessarily mean that they have an IS_A relationship.
--
Scott Hill : sco### [at] cyberlifecouk
Software Engineer (and all round nice guy)
Author of Pandora's Box : Watch this space.
Work homepage : http://www.cyberlife.co.uk
"We will decide what the news is. The news is what we tell you it is." - The
Fox TV network.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Anthony Bennett <ben### [at] panamaphoenixnet> wrote in message
news:371### [at] panamaphoenixnet...
> I actually have a friend with 2.5. But, I don't know, I just don't like
the
> interface, never found it friendly. Now, Bryce and Lightwave, that is a
nice
> interface! You understand immediately how to use them. Too bad I don't
have a
> couple thousand just lying around...
Pandora's Box (my not-so-soon to be freeware modeller for POV).
I know I'm biased, but boy is it looking like it's going to be cool (If
it ever actually gets done (looking less and less likely as "the new job"
keeps getting in the way)). Nice intuitive UI (it'll work just the way _you_
want to it work!) and a powerful, yet flexible (and probably
over-ambitious), feature set.
(Details on the web just as soon as a) I get my self a web-site and b)
they're ready for publishing (things are still too fluid for that)).
--
Scott Hill : sco### [at] cyberlifecouk
Software Engineer (and all round nice guy)
Author of Pandora's Box : Watch this space.
Work homepage : http://www.cyberlife.co.uk
"We will decide what the news is. The news is what we tell you it is." - The
Fox TV network.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
