 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 01:59:46 -0400, "Mark Wagner"
<mar### [at] gte net> wrote:
Pretty Swift-styled, no? :)
Peter Popov
ICQ: 15002700
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker wrote:
>
>
> And while we're at it, let's get rid of area_light, since you can fake it with
> a grid of point light sources.
No, you can't. Using area_light affects only the way, how shadows are
calculated, object's illumination is same as with one light source. I
didn't knew it before and I wanted to use area_light for rendering
lightning from computer screen. No matter how many lights I specified
for grid, object's illumination was still same. Only RTFM helped me out
and I created grid of point lights instead.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Jul 1999 14:39:54 +0300, Vahur Krouverk wrote:
>Ron Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>> And while we're at it, let's get rid of area_light, since you can fake it with
>> a grid of point light sources.
>No, you can't. Using area_light affects only the way, how shadows are
>calculated, object's illumination is same as with one light source.
I actually knew that when I wrote it, but since I consider that "feature"
of area lights to be broken, I ignored it. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mark Wagner wrote:
> Doing this has many advantages:
>
> First, it will make learning the language much easier. By reducing the
> number of object type keywords from 23 to 4, plus the CSG keywords
> intersection and union. All the other objects can be constructed from these
> basic objects.
Do you really think so? I think using the box keyword is much easier,
and
much easier to learn than using a poly with all its parameters.
> Second, it will reduce the time spent by the computer parsing the scene
> files. With the reduced number of keywords, the POV-Ray parser will have a
> smaller list of words to check against, resulting in faster parsing and
> quicker detection of syntax errors.
Well, parsing time is not very often the longer time, when tracing an
image.
> Third, this would make writing utilities to convert to or, primarily, from
> the POV-Ray format significantly easier, as the programmer would have fewer
> object types to contend with.
If you have problems with that, why dont you have tools like yacc or
bison
doing this job for you? They come free with every Linux distribution and
make
creating a parser an much easyer job.
Perhaps the language would be easier to be read by computers, but IMHO
it
would never be human readable.
> With all the benefits that implementing this proposal would provide, I
> strongly urge the POV-Team to pursue this course of action.
>
> Mark
Jojo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
You are a very sad man. I suggest you find help.
H.E. Day
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
> Why complicate things with such slow primitives. Each of your chosen objects
> are difficult to compute and are slow to render. I propose instead reverting
> to a simple phong shaded triangle rendering system. This would make realtime
> raytracing possible and the are no shapes that cannot be represented with
> triangles.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
Please, don't let POV be a triangle-based renderer!!! That's a big reason I
choose pov over over such raytracers as RayDream!!!
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (1 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"SamuelT." wrote:
> Please, don't let POV be a triangle-based renderer!!! That's a big reason I
> choose pov over over such raytracers as RayDream!!!
I was jesting. Making a joke. I was not serious. I was lying. I don't
want Pov to revert to a phong shaded triangle rendering system. I was
pulling your leg. Do not believe my sincerity. Ain't gonna happen. Never
had it never will. Hades will freeze over first. Don't worry be happy :)
I withdraw my suggestion. Long live all primitve types and may even more
be added in the future. A rolling stone gathers no moss.
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mark Wagner wrote:
>
> I just had an idea for an improvement to the POV-Ray scene language:
>
> Get rid of all the object keywords except blob, julia_fractal, and poly.
Mark,
I have yet to see a single rebuttal on your part concerning some of the
responses to this thread that you started. Were you simply bored and
thought you would stir people up or were you in fact serious about this
wild unorthodox proposal of yours ?
Stand and be heard by your peers !
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Get rid of all the object keywords except blob, julia_fractal, and poly.
This is certainly a start. However, as has already been mentioned, this is
simply not enough simplification. My modest proposal is as follows:
Remove all primitives and replace them with a single 'line' primitive, in the
form of:
line {
<x1,y1,z1>,<x2,y2,z2>
}
Lines have huge amounts of versatility, far more than even triangles. What is
more, they simplify and speed up renders by astronomical proportions! There are
only two conditions; either a ray hits the line, or it doesn't. Gone is all of
the fussing with normals or even textures. As a line is infinitely thin, the
chance of a ray hitting it is infinitely small, and thus the number of ray
intersections will be _drastically_ reduced. This will in turn increase the
rendering speed, dare I say *PAST* the speed of real-time rendering! With LORT,
(Line-Only Ray Tracing) and LO-Ray (Line-Only Raytracer) it would be
theoretically possible to raytrace faster than the speed of light, making time
travel possible. The masterpieces that could be created can only be begun to be
imagined.
-Alex Vandiver
/--------------------------------------------\
| Join the LO-Ray (Line-Only Raytracer) |
| project today by pressing the power button |
| on your monitor, or look on the web at the |
| amazing graphics possible, at http:// |
\--------------------------------------------/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thank goodness!!!
Ken wrote:
> "SamuelT." wrote:
>
> > Please, don't let POV be a triangle-based renderer!!! That's a big reason I
> > choose pov over over such raytracers as RayDream!!!
>
> I was jesting. Making a joke. I was not serious. I was lying. I don't
> want Pov to revert to a phong shaded triangle rendering system. I was
> pulling your leg. Do not believe my sincerity. Ain't gonna happen. Never
> had it never will. Hades will freeze over first. Don't worry be happy :)
> I withdraw my suggestion. Long live all primitve types and may even more
> be added in the future. A rolling stone gathers no moss.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (1 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
