 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
> 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
Ahem... Ehh... Why does 3DS scream in my eyes when I read this? *sighs*
The basic idea of pov is a raytracer, not a cheap hack at a mesh
handler...
//Spider
--Nothing matters anymore.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In povray.general Ron Parker <par### [at] fwicom> wrote:
: It would be nice if it were possible to
: decompose every object into triangles to within specified tolerances
Is it possible for any object type in povray?
What about the infinite objects (planes, polys...)? How do you make an
infinite triangle?
What about csg?
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nieminen Mika wrote:
>
> In povray.general Ron Parker <par### [at] fwicom> wrote:
> : It would be nice if it were possible to
> : decompose every object into triangles to within specified tolerances
>
> Is it possible for any object type in povray?
> What about the infinite objects (planes, polys...)? How do you make an
> infinite triangle?
> What about csg?
Wouldn't it also add greatly to the memory overhead for the program. I
recall reading that the reason the developers of pov originally decided to
use the mathematically derived primitives unlike the triangle model is because
it is both faster and less memory intensive to create. 3ds max to create
an equivalent smooth sphere without using surface normal smoothing requires
1000's of triangles to represent. It would surely limit the number of
objects you could include in your scene if you had low memory on your system
and even those with more memory would max out rather quickly with only 10's
to a few hundred objects. I'm not saying you shouldn't or can't add this
feature though I wonder at it's usefulness.
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/links.htm
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
