This question has probably been asked a million times before, but I'm
new to POV-ray and wondered if there are plans to make a POV-plugin for
3d studio Max, so Max will finally have a good ray tracing/radiosity
solution.
Jobbert

Post a reply to this message

Jobbert van Strien wrote :
> This question has probably been asked a million times before, but I'm
> new to POV-ray and wondered if there are plans to make a POV-plugin for
> 3d studio Max, so Max will finally have a good ray tracing/radiosity
> solution.
> Jobbert

Want to start a flamewar ? ;o)

BTW, in the times of 3DS 3 & 4, many books about 3DS recommended
using POV for high-quality final renderings...

-there are a couple of 3DS > POV utilities (3DS2POV,...)

-more generally, Pov and max are sooo conceptually different, doing
what you want will be difficult and inefficient...

Cheers,
Fabien.

Post a reply to this message

OK thanks for not flaming. But I still think that the programs should
merge...

Post a reply to this message

I think that it would be near impossible to do this considering MAX's
architecture... the whole of the rendering engine of POV-Ray and texture
calls would have to be created as DLLs and be able to interface with MAX,
something that's not very easy if you've read the MAX SDK section on
renderers...

Remember, MAX is STILL a scan-line renderer, and always will be, the
raytracing is ONLY part of the shadowing and texture calls...

If you want really quick raytracing in MAX I suggest RayMAX and if you want
quick raytracing and radiosity in MAX, I suggest RadioRay (the radiosity
this produces is superb, the best I've seen anywhere).  Both are very fast
and efficient... and cost a packet :-(

If you really want to render MAX files with POV-Ray, you'll have a lot of
problems if you're using the advanced features of MAX... (especially it's
highly specific raytraced textures and multi-level textures, because these
won't be converted...).

Currently there is no MAX to POV-Ray convertor, because of MAX's stack file
saving (saves the stacks, not the objects, which saves CONSIDERABLE space).
You could always export to 3DS and then to POV-Ray, but you'll loose so much
information that it wouldn't be worth it...

Oh, and you should be able to find a sample version of RayMAX on Trinity
3D's site, www.trinity3d.com

They also have the best collection of MAX plug-ins I've seen... (plus there
is a good one on my website ;-)

--
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

Jobbert van Strien wrote in message <3714FF1B.54B091FF@wxs.nl>...
>OK thanks for not flaming. But I still think that the programs should
>merge...

Post a reply to this message

Thanks for the information. I'm not a programmer and have no idea how these
programs work code-like. As you say there are plugins like Raymax, which comes
with a render engine of its own. That's why I thought that it might be possible
to create a plugin render engine from POV-Ray. By the way, I did try Raymax, but
it just isn't that good and fast as POV ray. And about Radioray: The radiosity
calculation is not fast, only if you lower the quality to a very doubtful value
it can compete with POV, but the images look shitty. I've heard that in Max3 the
renderer is completely redesigned, and now it should be easier for 3rd party
plugin developers to create plugin renderers that support things like caustics,
reflection, refraction, radiosity? So I'll wait for that then. Thanks anyway.
Jobbert

Post a reply to this message

Yes, you're right, Radioray can't compete with POV-Ray, not unless you're
running a ludicrously fast computer!  :)

MAX R3's rendering interface has been completely redesigned and yes, it
should be faster.  Each element of the rendering has been split into
plug-ins... shadows, shaders, anti-aliasing etc etc.  Some other cool
additions include Anistropic shaders, Oren-Neyler-Blinn surface model,
Render Effects (Film Grain, Flare, Glow, Color Balance, Brightness/Contrast
etc, added when you render in normal mode... without having to jump to the
VP), soft selections, Surface Tools, MORE(!!!)  NURBS features, highly
editable patches and XReferencing (so no more "damn, now I've got to copy
this model into that OTHER scene I made because I changed it..." it
basically is like AutoCAD's Object Referencing).

Also the Heidi engine has been improved and is now 30% faster for viewport
displays!  WOO HOO!!!  (oh and it's also been optimised for Pentium III
Xeon, so the people lucky enough to be running Quad PIII Xeon 500 Mhz
Silicon Graphics Inc Workstations will get a HUGE boost!!!)

--
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

Jobbert van Strien wrote in message <37159930.5A228786@wxs.nl>...
>Thanks for the information. I'm not a programmer and have no idea how these
>programs work code-like. As you say there are plugins like Raymax, which
comes
>with a render engine of its own. That's why I thought that it might be
possible
>to create a plugin render engine from POV-Ray. By the way, I did try
Raymax, but
>it just isn't that good and fast as POV ray. And about Radioray: The
radiosity
>calculation is not fast, only if you lower the quality to a very doubtful
value
>it can compete with POV, but the images look shitty. I've heard that in
Max3 the
>renderer is completely redesigned, and now it should be easier for 3rd
party
>plugin developers to create plugin renderers that support things like
caustics,
>reflection, refraction, radiosity? So I'll wait for that then. Thanks
anyway.
>Jobbert

Post a reply to this message

Hi!

Ceck out Nathan's UV-Patch at: http://nathan.kopp.com/patched.htm and use it
together with Thomas Baier's 3DS to POV-Ray converter:
http://extra.newsguy.com/~tbaier/

So long,
Johannes.


Jobbert van Strien wrote in message <3714C278.71B5F0EA@wxs.nl>...
>This question has probably been asked a million times before, but I'm
>new to POV-ray and wondered if there are plans to make a POV-plugin for
>3d studio Max, so Max will finally have a good ray tracing/radiosity
>solution.
>Jobbert
>

Post a reply to this message

What's an Oren-Neyler-Blinn surface model, and would I want to have it in
POV? I would, wouldn't I :)

Margus

Lance Birch wrote in message <3715b11b.0@news.povray.org>...
>Yes, you're right, Radioray can't compete with POV-Ray, not unless you're
>running a ludicrously fast computer!  :)
>
>MAX R3's rendering interface has been completely redesigned and yes, it
>should be faster.  Each element of the rendering has been split into
>plug-ins... shadows, shaders, anti-aliasing etc etc.  Some other cool
>additions include Anistropic shaders, Oren-Neyler-Blinn surface model,
>Render Effects (Film Grain, Flare, Glow, Color Balance, Brightness/Contrast
>etc, added when you render in normal mode... without having to jump to the
>VP), soft selections, Surface Tools, MORE(!!!)  NURBS features, highly
>editable patches and XReferencing (so no more "damn, now I've got to copy
>this model into that OTHER scene I made because I changed it..." it
>basically is like AutoCAD's Object Referencing).
>
>Also the Heidi engine has been improved and is now 30% faster for viewport
>displays!  WOO HOO!!!  (oh and it's also been optimised for Pentium III
>Xeon, so the people lucky enough to be running Quad PIII Xeon 500 Mhz
>Silicon Graphics Inc Workstations will get a HUGE boost!!!)
>
>--
>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
>
>Jobbert van Strien wrote in message <37159930.5A228786@wxs.nl>...
>>Thanks for the information. I'm not a programmer and have no idea how
these
>>programs work code-like. As you say there are plugins like Raymax, which
>comes
>>with a render engine of its own. That's why I thought that it might be
>possible
>>to create a plugin render engine from POV-Ray. By the way, I did try
>Raymax, but
>>it just isn't that good and fast as POV ray. And about Radioray: The
>radiosity
>>calculation is not fast, only if you lower the quality to a very doubtful
>value
>>it can compete with POV, but the images look shitty. I've heard that in
>Max3 the
>>renderer is completely redesigned, and now it should be easier for 3rd
>party
>>plugin developers to create plugin renderers that support things like
>caustics,
>>reflection, refraction, radiosity? So I'll wait for that then. Thanks
>anyway.
>>Jobbert
>
>

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 15 Apr 1999 19:12:16 +0300, "Margus Ramst"
<mar### [at] peakeduee> wrote:

>What's an Oren-Neyler-Blinn surface model, and would I want to have it in
>POV? I would, wouldn't I :)

This probably refers to the Oren-Nayar reflectance model.  It is a
diffuse lighting model that handles rough surfaces more accurately
than the usual Lambertian model.  Larry Gritz has a Renderman shader
for BMRT that does the Oren-Nayar model if you want to look at that.
The relevant paper is:
Oren, Michael and Shree K. Nayar
Generalization of Lambert's reflectance model
Computer Graphics Annual Conference Series 1994 (SIGGraph 94)
pp. 239 to 246
It doesn't look like it would be too tough to add to POV.  You can get
the shader at the RenderMan Repository if you want to study the code.

Jerry Anning
clem "at" dhol "dot" com

Post a reply to this message

Thanks, I'll check it out. What I would really like to have though, is the
Fresnel reflecion/refraction model. This allows, for example, very realistic
metallic surfaces (provided you can find the right ior for, say, copper -
0.83 or something)

Margus

Jerry Anning wrote in message <37161d00.5566014@news.povray.org>...
>On Thu, 15 Apr 1999 19:12:16 +0300, "Margus Ramst"
><mar### [at] peakeduee> wrote:
>
>>What's an Oren-Neyler-Blinn surface model, and would I want to have it in
>>POV? I would, wouldn't I :)
>
>This probably refers to the Oren-Nayar reflectance model.  It is a
>diffuse lighting model that handles rough surfaces more accurately
>than the usual Lambertian model.  Larry Gritz has a Renderman shader
>for BMRT that does the Oren-Nayar model if you want to look at that.
>The relevant paper is:
>Oren, Michael and Shree K. Nayar
>Generalization of Lambert's reflectance model
>Computer Graphics Annual Conference Series 1994 (SIGGraph 94)
>pp. 239 to 246
>It doesn't look like it would be too tough to add to POV.  You can get
>the shader at the RenderMan Repository if you want to study the code.
>
>Jerry Anning
>clem "at" dhol "dot" com

Post a reply to this message

Blinn might be Jeff Blinn, an old timer to 3D modeling/raytracing. He
was in a PBS special once about computer graphics, circa mid-'80's I
think. The show with a couple of flamingo-like birds dancing around at
the closing credits.
Sorry, I'm out of here, just thought I knew something for a moment ;)


Jerry Anning wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 15 Apr 1999 19:12:16 +0300, "Margus Ramst"
> <mar### [at] peakeduee> wrote:
> 
> >What's an Oren-Neyler-Blinn surface model, and would I want to have it in
> >POV? I would, wouldn't I :)
> 
> This probably refers to the Oren-Nayar reflectance model.  It is a
> diffuse lighting model that handles rough surfaces more accurately
> than the usual Lambertian model.

-- 
 omniVERSE: beyond the universe
  http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
 mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?Subject=PoV-News

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 15 Apr 1999 21:05:09 +0300, "Margus Ramst"
<mar### [at] peakeduee> wrote:

>What I would really like to have though, is the
>Fresnel reflecion/refraction model. This allows, for example, very realistic
>metallic surfaces (provided you can find the right ior for, say, copper -
>0.83 or something)

WYZPOV, a POV 3.02 patch currently available at the PatchStation on
twysted.net provides this under the name of angle-dependent
reflectivity.  This part of WYZPOV is also found in the Superpatch,
available at the same place.

Jerry Anning
clem "at" dhol "dot" com

Post a reply to this message

Margus Ramst wrote:
> 
> Thanks, I'll check it out. What I would really like to have though, is the
> Fresnel reflecion/refraction model. This allows, for example, very realistic
> metallic surfaces (provided you can find the right ior for, say, copper -
> 0.83 or something)
> 
> Margus

 Which would require an overide of the current default for ior of anything
below one treated as refraction = off.

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

You'll also want Anistropic rendering too...

In MAX you can already provide IORs to metals.

--
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

Jerry Anning wrote in message <37164794.16468399@news.povray.org>...
>On Thu, 15 Apr 1999 21:05:09 +0300, "Margus Ramst"
><mar### [at] peakeduee> wrote:
>
>>What I would really like to have though, is the
>>Fresnel reflecion/refraction model. This allows, for example, very
realistic
>>metallic surfaces (provided you can find the right ior for, say, copper -
>>0.83 or something)

Post a reply to this message

Yeah, I know. It's very nice. But it is not a complete implementation of the
Fesnel model. It only works for transparent materials. You can't specify <1
IORs for metals.

Margus

Jerry Anning wrote in message <37164794.16468399@news.povray.org>...
>
>WYZPOV, a POV 3.02 patch currently available at the PatchStation on
>twysted.net provides this under the name of angle-dependent
>reflectivity.  This part of WYZPOV is also found in the Superpatch,
>available at the same place.
>
>Jerry Anning
>clem "at" dhol "dot" com

Post a reply to this message

Lance Birch wrote in message <37166298.0@news.povray.org>...
>You'll also want Anistropic rendering too...
>

Alright. Anything you say, it's fine by me :)

>In MAX you can already provide IORs to metals.
>


In BMRT, too.

Margus

Post a reply to this message

Margus Ramst wrote:
> 
> Yeah, I know. It's very nice. But it is not a complete implementation of the
> Fesnel model. It only works for transparent materials. You can't specify <1
> IORs for metals.

I am curious. Do metals really have an indexable amount of refraction or
would it be more accuratly described as an incident angle of reflection ?
This inquiring mind, and perhaps others as well, would like to know.

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

I should explain I guess :)

Anistropic rendering is a type of surface shading model used for metal and,
believe it or not, silk textures...

The idea is that of a brushed metal finish and while this can be achived to
some extent using bump maps, the Anistropic rendering model does a HUGE
amount of the work for you with much better results and greater control.  It
also allows you to have the surface color, or finish, normal dependant,
which is great for modelling brushed surfaces!!!

--
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

Margus Ramst wrote...
>Lance Birch wrote in message <37166298.0@news.povray.org>...
>>You'll also want Anistropic rendering too...
>Alright. Anything you say, it's fine by me :)
>>In MAX you can already provide IORs to metals.

>In BMRT, too.
>Margus

Post a reply to this message

Yes, I guess for most purposes it is easier to describe it as an index of
reflection (if that's the right name...).

And as you said of course, it is dependant on the incident of reflection...
but to my knowledge there isn't really a perfect way to measure something
like this from real life...

--
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

Ken wrote in message <37168CC1.301BE239@pacbell.net>...
>Margus Ramst wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, I know. It's very nice. But it is not a complete implementation of
the
>> Fesnel model. It only works for transparent materials. You can't specify
<1
>> IORs for metals.
>
>I am curious. Do metals really have an indexable amount of refraction or
>would it be more accuratly described as an incident angle of reflection ?
>This inquiring mind, and perhaps others as well, would like to know.
>
>--
>Ken Tyler
>
>mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

Lance Birch wrote:

> And as you said of course, it is dependant on the incident of reflection...
> but to my knowledge there isn't really a perfect way to measure something
> like this from real life...

That sir is where you are wrong. There are very well defined methods
that have been developed to define the characteristics of light and
how it interacts with various surfaces and finishes. Many of these
methods are used at least in part for metalurgical testing and there is
still a growing research industry for controlling laser light, either
through optimizing the reflection for a surface without loss of
energy or the multitude of of beam splitting surfaces whose applications
are so numerous that a degree from college on the subject will still
leave you not knowing everything you could know about it.


-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

OK, OK nice discussion... but the original question was about POV ray as a
plugin for 3dstudio max. Forget about it. I just read the 3d studio
newsgroup and guess what: Mental Ray 2 will be available for Max 3 pretty
soon, so I guess I won't need POV then. (except for the money-issue).
Thanks for the reactions
Jobbert

Post a reply to this message

Oh... I stand corrected (I thought it wasn't possible to accurately messure
the IOR of a solid object because it is affected by the way in which the
original surface has been manufactured...)

--
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:
> 
> Oh... I stand corrected (I thought it wasn't possible to accurately messure
> the IOR of a solid object because it is affected by the way in which the
> original surface has been manufactured...)
> 
> --
> Lance.

  What we have here is a Ying and Yang, white and black, yes an no, north
and south, and live or die. You mentioned that it is not possible to accuratly
measure the incident angle of of reflection which prompted me to reply as I did.
Now you are back on the subject of measuring the ior values of non refractive
materials again. Let's pick one subject, discuss it, then move to the next in
turn so we both know what the heck we are replying to.

P.S. I checked a list a couple of hours ago that listed the ior values of over
170 different materials and not one of those listed was a common metal type.
All were related in some way to crystaline structures and materials. i.e.
quartz, glass, silicon carbide, salt, etc...

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

Yes, sorry about that... I was actually talking about not being able to
measure the IOR of a non-refractive solid very easily...

(because it kinds of depends on the overall light interaction... for
example, crystaline substances)

Sorry about the misunderstanding there!!!  (typical of me, you know that, I
always seem to complicate things in one way or another... ;-)

--
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

Ken wrote in message <371735DE.99018A4D@pacbell.net>...
>Lance Birch wrote:
>>
>> Oh... I stand corrected (I thought it wasn't possible to accurately
messure
>> the IOR of a solid object because it is affected by the way in which the
>> original surface has been manufactured...)
>>
>> --
>> Lance.
>
>  What we have here is a Ying and Yang, white and black, yes an no, north
>and south, and live or die. You mentioned that it is not possible to
accuratly
>measure the incident angle of of reflection which prompted me to reply as I
did.
>Now you are back on the subject of measuring the ior values of non
refractive
>materials again. Let's pick one subject, discuss it, then move to the next
in
>turn so we both know what the heck we are replying to.
>
>P.S. I checked a list a couple of hours ago that listed the ior values of
over
>170 different materials and not one of those listed was a common metal
type.
>All were related in some way to crystaline structures and materials. i.e.
>quartz, glass, silicon carbide, salt, etc...
>
>--
>Ken Tyler
>
>mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

Hmm, is that list avaiable somewhere? I was thinking in the lines of a include
file. It might come in handy somewhere.





Ken wrote:
> 
> Lance Birch wrote:
> >
> > Oh... I stand corrected (I thought it wasn't possible to accurately messure
> > the IOR of a solid object because it is affected by the way in which the
> > original surface has been manufactured...)
> >
> > --
> > Lance.
> 
>   What we have here is a Ying and Yang, white and black, yes an no, north
> and south, and live or die. You mentioned that it is not possible to accuratly
> measure the incident angle of of reflection which prompted me to reply as I did.
> Now you are back on the subject of measuring the ior values of non refractive
> materials again. Let's pick one subject, discuss it, then move to the next in
> turn so we both know what the heck we are replying to.
> 
> P.S. I checked a list a couple of hours ago that listed the ior values of over
> 170 different materials and not one of those listed was a common metal type.
> All were related in some way to crystaline structures and materials. i.e.
> quartz, glass, silicon carbide, salt, etc...
> 
> --
> Ken Tyler
> 
> mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

-- 
//Spider
        [ spi### [at] bahnhofse ]-[ http://www.bahnhof.se/~spider/ ]
What I can do and what I could do, I just don't know anymore
                "Marian"
        By: "Sisters Of Mercy"

Post a reply to this message

Spider wrote:
> 
> Hmm, is that list avaiable somewhere? I was thinking in the lines of a include
> file. It might come in handy somewhere.

povray.text.scene-files posted in two minutes

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 16 Apr 1999 16:41:32 +0200, Spider <spi### [at] bahnhofse> wrote:
>Hmm, is that list avaiable somewhere? I was thinking in the lines of a include
>file. It might come in handy somewhere.

I don't know about that list, but you can find many (though not 170!) common 
IORs at http://www.is.kiruna.se/~cjo/d2i/REFRACTION.INDEX3.html

Post a reply to this message

Ron Parker wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 16 Apr 1999 16:41:32 +0200, Spider <spi### [at] bahnhofse> wrote:
> >Hmm, is that list avaiable somewhere? I was thinking in the lines of a include
> >file. It might come in handy somewhere.
> 
> I don't know about that list, but you can find many (though not 170!) common
> IORs at http://www.is.kiruna.se/~cjo/d2i/REFRACTION.INDEX3.html

I must moment a take to admit that my left handed lysdexia slaugh me in a clight
tis mruth. The list had only 117 entries and not the 170 I boasted earlier.

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

whopp whoppa...

Thanx !
(something for the pov-release.)

Ken wrote:
> 
> Spider wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, is that list avaiable somewhere? I was thinking in the lines of a include
> > file. It might come in handy somewhere.
> 
> povray.text.scene-files posted in two minutes
> 
> --
> Ken Tyler
> 
> mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

-- 
//Spider
        [ spi### [at] bahnhofse ]-[ http://www.bahnhof.se/~spider/ ]
What I can do and what I could do, I just don't know anymore
                "Marian"
        By: "Sisters Of Mercy"

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote:

> P.S. I checked a list a couple of hours ago that listed the ior values of over
> 170 different materials and not one of those listed was a common metal type.
> All were related in some way to crystaline structures and materials. i.e.
> quartz, glass, silicon carbide, salt, etc...

Depends on the literature. Long ago (when I was doing optics
in waveguides) we had tables with the IOR of copper, silicon,
aluminum etc.
It is relevant to know them e.g. for microscopic inspection
of ICs (the layers there are sometimes so thin that metals
have to be considered transparent).

AFAIK most of them have rather high IORs (I remember values about 
3 .. 4 for silicon) with even higher imaginary parts (which
are *very* relevant). The dispersion is also much higher than
for ordinary transparent media (many semiconductors are almost
transparent in the near IR).

Fresnels formulas gave pretty realistic colors for them using
a simple RGB model with the central wavelengths of the three colors.

Whilst this might be useless for raytracing metals, it might help
for stuff with similar behavios but much smaller imaginary part,
e.g. eosine (which is red in transmitted (and therefore diffusely
reflected) light, but green in properly reflected light (i.e.
"reflection","phong", and "specular" in POV).

Ralf

Post a reply to this message