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

I AGREE!!!  :)

--
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
Nieminen Mika wrote in message <379d50a0@news.povray.org>...
>  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

>I second that. Most 3D packages (I'm talking scanline here) have some
>sort of boolean operations.

hehe, from my experiance they're not very good either :)  Sure, it can be
done, but there are LOTS of problems associated with it.  This was
particularly true with MAX 1.2 and 2.0 (2.5 fixed it to most extents and it
works very well now).  But have you ever taken a mesh of a text object and
tried to do an intersection of it with another text object at 90 degrees?
(in a mesh program?)

That's the main problem, booleaning with meshes doesn't always work very
well.

--
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

The answer, I think, has been discussed for quite a while.
Non-linear transformations is the main benefit I see. And not a small one at
that.

Margus

Nieminen Mika wrote:
> 
>   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

In povray.general Margus Ramst <mar### [at] peakeduee> wrote:
: Non-linear transformations is the main benefit I see. And not a small one at
: that.

  Then make all your objects with spatch or whatever modeller.

-- 
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 27 Jul 1999 02:24:32 -0400, Nieminen Mika <war### [at] cctutfi> wrote:

>  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.

(been out of town for a while)

I wasn't talking about _all_ objects. Heaven forbid! I was only
replying to Ron who said Julias can't be triangulated and then to
Margus who didn't see the sense in doing it. So I mentioned the major
beneft of tesellating this particular object, mainly implementing it
in Moray and other modellers since it is a shape that's hard to
visualize by only knowing the numbers involved. And once you have it
as a mesh in a modeller you can export it to whatever format you like,
so that even Lance can have some fun of it with MAX :) Or, as I
(humorously?) suggested, you can export it to VRML, put a motherload
of colored lights around it and start spinning it realtime until you
get hypnotized (or throw up, or both :) ) 

>  And besides, implementing an OpenGL or whatever preview would make povray
>non-portable.

Actually OpenGL is quite portable. Well, Crays don't have it, but then
again, you'll see a raytraced preview on a Cray, so... :) But don't
get me wrong here, I agree that integrating an OpenGL preview system
for all objects from within POV would be hard, hard to port and
generally senseless work. I've never claimed the opposite.


Peter Popov
ICQ: 15002700

Post a reply to this message

In povray.general Peter Popov <pet### [at] usanet> wrote:
: Actually OpenGL is quite portable.

  It may be _quite_ portable, but not available for all the platforms povray
should be, for example DOS or this sparcstation 5.

-- 
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 Peter Popov <pet### [at] usanet> wrote:
> : Actually OpenGL is quite portable.
> 
>   It may be _quite_ portable, but not available for all the platforms povray
> should be, for example DOS or this sparcstation 5.

Of course it is (available).  Mesa (OpenGL clone) compiles quite happily
under DOS (and under Solaris).  Of course it doesn't do display stuff
under DOS, but it can generate a bitmap in memory that POV-Ray could
then write into the VGA buffers.

Xander

Post a reply to this message