 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken <tyl### [at] pacbell net> wrote in message
news:379C02D6.1A51296D@pacbell.net...
> 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.
>
I agree with you Ken. I often use POV to create scenes with many tens of
thousands of spheres (using Biowin) , and from my experience there's *no
way* that I'd be able to use more than a few hundred spheres in a mesh based
program. As far as I'm concerned, it's the use of mathematically defined
primitives, along with the procedural textures that make POV so great.
Andy
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In povray.programming Andrew Cocker <and### [at] acockerfreeservecouk> wrote:
: I agree with you Ken. I often use POV to create scenes with many tens of
: thousands of spheres (using Biowin) , and from my experience there's *no
: way* that I'd be able to use more than a few hundred spheres in a mesh based
: program. As far as I'm concerned, it's the use of mathematically defined
: primitives, along with the procedural textures that make POV so great.
Actually, if you had defined one mesh object, which is the sphere, and
then spread tens of thousands of copies of that declared mesh (scaling,
rotating, translating and texturing them), memory consumption would not be
very high.
If each one of the spheres had to be a _different_ mesh (like having
different number of spikes all of them), then the memory consumption would
be prohibitive.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26 Jul 1999 02:26:48 -0400, 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?
Well, you're right there. Other finite objects would be tough, too.
Ferinstance, I don't want to think about the Julia object. But it'd
be nice for the objects people actually tend to use.
> What about csg?
CSG probably isn't a problem. It can be done, it's just a Simple
Matter of Programming. Lots of programming, that is.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26 Jul 1999 09:46:56 -0400, par### [at] fwicom (Ron Parker) wrote:
>Well, you're right there. Other finite objects would be tough, too.
>Ferinstance, I don't want to think about the Julia object. But it'd
>be nice for the objects people actually tend to use.
Ahem, just what are you trying to imply, Ron? For Pete's sake, I've
rendered more Julias than anything else (even spheres). Then again, I
might be nuts :)
Seriously, Pascal Massimino's page is hosted on povray.org . I think I
saw something about tesselating a Julia object there.
>> What about csg?
>
>CSG probably isn't a problem. It can be done, it's just a Simple
>Matter of Programming. Lots of programming, that is.
:)
I second that. Most 3D packages (I'm talking scanline here) have some
sort of boolean operations.
Peter Popov
ICQ: 15002700
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Why testellate the Julia object? What do you want to do? Twist it? <g>
Margus
Peter Popov wrote:
>
> On 26 Jul 1999 09:46:56 -0400, par### [at] fwicom (Ron Parker) wrote:
>
> >Well, you're right there. Other finite objects would be tough, too.
> >Ferinstance, I don't want to think about the Julia object. But it'd
> >be nice for the objects people actually tend to use.
>
> Ahem, just what are you trying to imply, Ron? For Pete's sake, I've
> rendered more Julias than anything else (even spheres). Then again, I
> might be nuts :)
>
> Seriously, Pascal Massimino's page is hosted on povray.org . I think I
> saw something about tesselating a Julia object there.
>
> >> What about csg?
> >
> >CSG probably isn't a problem. It can be done, it's just a Simple
> >Matter of Programming. Lots of programming, that is.
>
> :)
> I second that. Most 3D packages (I'm talking scanline here) have some
> sort of boolean operations.
>
> Peter Popov
> ICQ: 15002700
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:55:45 +0300, Margus Ramst <mar### [at] peakeduee>
wrote:
>Why testellate the Julia object? What do you want to do? Twist it? <g>
>
>Margus
Implement it in Moray? <--G--> Export it to VRML and have a Realtime
Spinning Julia Frenzy party? Calculate the electrostatic field around
it? You name it...
Peter Popov
ICQ: 15002700
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Peter Popov wrote:
>
> On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:55:45 +0300, Margus Ramst <mar### [at] peakeduee>
> wrote:
>
> >Why testellate the Julia object? What do you want to do? Twist it? <g>
> >
> >Margus
>
> Implement it in Moray? <--G--> Export it to VRML and have a Realtime
> Spinning Julia Frenzy party? Calculate the electrostatic field around
> it? You name it...
I would like to serve mine up with whip cream and strawberries...
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/links.htm
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
A question:
Is all this triangulation of objects worth the efforts? Ok, you get a
preview. So what? I think that there are many other things more important
for the povteam to do than worrying about previews. Making trianguation
code for _all_ the objects is not a trivial thing and the benefits are
questionable. If you want a preview, use a modeller.
And besides, implementing an OpenGL or whatever preview would make povray
non-portable.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
haha, some of you just knew I was going to reply to this didn't you? ;-)
>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...
Well, when it comes to 3DS, you're right, it SUCKS! However, I must note
that there is a MASSIVE difference between 3D Studio and 3D Studio MAX. 3D
Studio isn't even considered a product any more (and it's not sold from
authorised dealers).
The fact is that meshes are extremely powerful and CAN produce perfect image
quality if the artist and the renderer are careful. The introduction of
such techniques as NURBS and adaptive degradation make meshes perfectly
smooth (finally!!!).
So in conclusion, leave POV-Ray the way it is because as a raytracer it
ROCKS! And second, please don't criticise renderers that you haven't used
the latest version of (for more than a month) :)
hehe, OK, that's my 2 cents, feel free to flame me now.
--
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://listen.to/colorblind
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Once again, I must comment :)
>thousands of spheres (using Biowin) , and from my experience there's *no
>way* that I'd be able to use more than a few hundred spheres in a mesh
based
>program. As far as I'm concerned, it's the use of mathematically defined
Well actually I've done a scene with over 5 million triangles and it wasn't
that bad. Actually just the other day I imported a protein model of 5000 or
so atoms and connections and it didn't really have a problem (took a few
minutes to load initially but after that there were no problems).
> 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
Very true for POV-Ray's architecture. POV-Ray just wasn't meant to load
millions of triangles. The number of triangles I usually use for a
geosphere (not a sphere, a geosphere, which is much more optimal) is about
200-800 or above if I need extra smoothness of the camera is particularly
close. If it's a variable range thing, I just make the sphere a NURBS
surface and let the renderer figure it out :)
But of course once again, it depends on the program. And once again, I must
say that I think POV-Ray should be left as it is.
--
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://listen.to/colorblind
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
