 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote in message <377A2299.8056D310@pacbell.net>...
>
>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.
>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.
Phong-shaded triangles - isn't that what AutoCad release 12 uses? It looks
truly awful.
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mark Wagner <mar### [at] gte net> wrote in message
news:3779b282@news.povray.org...
> 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.
Another (more serious) suggestion would be to eliminate all the internal
object types in favor of a single highly optimized primitive (say
triangles). You can still have the higher level primitives at the level of
the input language, but convert them (lazily, and perhaps with caching) into
triangles for the purpose of tracing. Having a single underlying geometric
representation allows you to concentrate your effort on producing a highly
optimized set of routines that benefit all scenes.
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Egad man! All triangles?! No way! I'd have to put POV-Ray on the shelf
if it were done that way. The non-meshed primitives in POV-Ray are my
favorite things. And please, no one tell me that is how they really are
done, you know, internally within the render engine, okay? I'd hate to
hear it if so.
Bob
Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>
> Another (more serious) suggestion would be to eliminate all the internal
> object types in favor of a single highly optimized primitive (say
> triangles). You can still have the higher level primitives at the level of
> the input language, but convert them (lazily, and perhaps with caching) into
> triangles for the purpose of tracing. Having a single underlying geometric
> representation allows you to concentrate your effort on producing a highly
> optimized set of routines that benefit all scenes.
>
> Mark
--
omniVERSE: beyond the universe
http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
mailto://inversez@aol.com?Subject=PoV-News
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bob Hughes wrote in message <379A68AA.E643AC11@aol.com>...
>Egad man! All triangles?! No way! I'd have to put POV-Ray on the shelf
>if it were done that way. The non-meshed primitives in POV-Ray are my
>favorite things. And please, no one tell me that is how they really are
>done, you know, internally within the render engine, okay? I'd hate to
>hear it if so.
It is NOT.
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Insert sigh of relief here =>
Mark Wagner wrote:
>
> Bob Hughes wrote in message <379A68AA.E643AC11@aol.com>...
> >Egad man! All triangles?! No way! I'd have to put POV-Ray on the shelf
> >if it were done that way. The non-meshed primitives in POV-Ray are my
> >favorite things. And please, no one tell me that is how they really are
> >done, you know, internally within the render engine, okay? I'd hate to
> >hear it if so.
>
> It is NOT.
>
> Mark
--
omniVERSE: beyond the universe
http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
mailto://inversez@aol.com?Subject=PoV-News
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bob Hughes <inv### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:379A68AA.E643AC11@aol.com...
> Egad man! All triangles?! No way! I'd have to put POV-Ray on the shelf
> if it were done that way. The non-meshed primitives in POV-Ray are my
> favorite things.
<snip>
I agree with you there, Bob.
Andy
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 20:30:18 -0500, Bob Hughes <inv### [at] aolcom>
wrote:
>Egad man! All triangles?! No way! I'd have to put POV-Ray on the shelf
>if it were done that way. The non-meshed primitives in POV-Ray are my
>favorite things. And please, no one tell me that is how they really are
>done, you know, internally within the render engine, okay? I'd hate to
>hear it if so.
I have to say that for my part I at least partly agree with Mark. POV
already decomposes at least some objects into triangles (bicubic
patches and heightfields) It would be nice if it were possible to
decompose every object into triangles to within specified tolerances
for the simple reason that implementing things like displacement
mapping, OpenGL preview, and export to certain other formats (e.g.
3DS) would then be possible. On the other hand, I'm not of the
opinion that POV should be made to ALWAYS use triangles. For example,
it seems unlikely that you could render a sphere-of-triangles as
quickly as you can currently render the mathematical sphere.
And then there's the notion that we should just listen to whatever
Mark has to say just because he's the one saying it. He is the man
responsible for the MTV raytracer, oh so long ago (has it really
been over ten years?) and he currently works for Pixar, so he probably
knows what he's talking about.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
