I'm know about POV since its creation, POV 0.5b,
and even DKB trace. The first ray tracing program I
ever used was DBW render. but since PovRay 3.1 was
out I stopped looking into it, mainly because I become
more interested in realtime rendering (OpenGl and clever
use of it to simulate reflection, and even radiosity).

   My question goes to the POV-Team in general, I would
like to know what kind of features have a chance to appear
in the next Major version of POV (4.0??). I know a 3.5
version is planned that will compile all unofficial
interesting patches (like the one with photon maps ).

   Precise question follows:

        - Will it exist an API allowing to use POVRay
          in a programmatically mode, for instance, POV
          could exist as a python module (like lightflow).
          It could be proprietary but it will be good to
          overcome some parts of the parser when used in
          conjunction with diverses pov front-end object
          generators or modelers.

        - Can we expect an preview mode using OpenGL (I'm
          aware that the tessalation of all objects existing
          in pov will be difficult, and infinity ojects also...)

        - Will the photon map be improved to perform optimised
          global illumination and shadows optimisation ?

        - Is there an official binary format of scene file
          planned ?

        - Extended particle system for simulating fur or grass?

    I was looking in Softimage Twister specifications and several
reviews from it, I finded this very innovative, I was so entousiastic
about it, that I dreamed to see a free rendering package going in the
same direction...

    I hope that a free package could be as ambitious as twister
(layer rendering, interactive renderer with object hierachy, etc).

    Nevertheless, and even if POV is not going that way, I would
like all the contributing people for such a fantastic initiative.



PS: My english is weak, sorry...

Post a reply to this message

All that I know is that POV-Ray 4.0 will, more than anything else, be
rewritten in C++, to clean house and organize things better and allow for
easier expansion. That's all I've been informed of. Do any of the TAGies
have a clue?

Post a reply to this message

TonyB wrote:
> 
> All that I know is that POV-Ray 4.0 will, more than anything else, be
> rewritten in C++, to clean house and organize things better and allow for
> easier expansion. That's all I've been informed of. Do any of the TAGies
> have a clue?

About the only thing anyone knows about the release of POV-Ray v4.0 is
that it is supposed to be the C++ rewrite. We are still trying to get
the POV-Team to tell us what will be included in the v3.5 release :)

TAGies ?

-- 
Ken Tyler -  1200+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

Claude Mench wrote:

> 
>    My question goes to the POV-Team in general, I would
> like to know what kind of features have a chance to appear
> in the next Major version of POV (4.0??). I know a 3.5
> version is planned that will compile all unofficial
> interesting patches (like the one with photon maps ).

 I am not speaking for the POV-Team, and most of your questions fall
into the catagory of feature requests, but I will try to answer some
of your questions for you anyway...

 
>    Precise question follows:
> 
>         - Can we expect an preview mode using OpenGL (I'm
>           aware that the tessalation of all objects existing
>           in pov will be difficult, and infinity ojects also...)

This is not likely. POV-Ray uses it's own algorithms to perform raytracing.
Even with the promises of support for raytracing functions, and hardware
support for future versions of the OpenGL standard, I doubt the POV-Team
will want to invest in the time and program overhead to offer support for
these features. These are good features for a GUI modelling environment
but they are not really all that good for a dedicated raytracing engine.
 
>         - Will the photon map be improved to perform optimised
>           global illumination and shadows optimisation ?

As far as I know the author of these functions in POV-Ray is working
on these issues even now. How soon he will optimize them to his own
satisfaction is anyones guess.
 
>         - Is there an official binary format of scene file
>           planned ?

  Last I heard (Chris Young - Plans for POV-Ray 3.5 and beyond) the POV-Team
has no plans for the support of a binary scene format. It has been discussed
in detail but the final decision was to not add support for this in any near
future release.
 
>         - Extended particle system for simulating fur or grass?

Several people have posted scenes in the binaries.images group on this
server using media for both hair and fur. It takes some dedcated work
on the users part to make it work but it's already possible.


-- 
Ken Tyler -  1200+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 6 Dec 1999 15:42:52 +0100, "Claude Mench"
<c.m### [at] adilinstrumentscom> wrote:

>Can we expect an preview mode using OpenGL (I'm
>aware that the tessalation of all objects existing
>in pov will be difficult, and infinity ojects also...)

  Is OpenGL a working standard among all of the platforms supported by
POV-Ray (Mac, Windows, Unix versions, MS-DOS)?

  For quick previews I think the existing quality (+q) settings suffice
for most scenes.

-- 
Alan - ako### [at] povrayorg - a k o n g <at> p o v r a y <dot> o r g
http://www.povray.org - Home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer

Post a reply to this message

In article <6hoo4s481b4ia7r882l9qsfsb81ss7auhk@4ax.com>, Alan Kong 
<ako### [at] povrayNO-SPAMorg> wrote:

>   Is OpenGL a working standard among all of the platforms supported by
> POV-Ray (Mac, Windows, Unix versions, MS-DOS)?

It is available on the Mac, although I think it requires an accelerator 
card(there isn't even a way to emulate a card, as far as I know).
I would hate to have POV require a 3D accelerator card, and get no 
benefit from having one other than a preview mode.

-- 
Chris Huff
e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/

Post a reply to this message

Claude Mench <c.m### [at] adilinstrumentscom> wrote:
: more interested in realtime rendering (OpenGl and clever
: use of it to simulate reflection, and even radiosity).

  If you are talking about environment mapping to simulate reflection and
light maps to achieve radiosity, then there's nothing strange with them
(of course it's not trivial to make them efficient, but the idea behind them
is quite simple). Most of the current 3D-games use both techniques to
achieve a kind of "fake" reflection (with env. mapping) and radiosity
(with light maps).
  Of course there are limitations: Environment mapping is not an accurate
reflection and radiosity using light maps works only in static scenes (you
can't move anything, no objects, no light sources, nothing).

:         - Can we expect an preview mode using OpenGL (I'm
:           aware that the tessalation of all objects existing
:           in pov will be difficult, and infinity ojects also...)

  You answered your own question. Converting all the primitives to
triangles is not a trivial task and probably not worth the efforts.
  And even when OpenGL is a standard, it's not part of the ANSI C++ standard.
Adding support for it would make povray platform-dependant.

:         - Will the photon map be improved to perform optimised
:           global illumination and shadows optimisation ?

  Nathan is the best one to answer this question.
  I have understood that using photon mapping for global illumination is
pretty inefficient and that the current radiosity method (with the fixes made
in uvpov) is a lot more efficient.
  The good thing about the current stochastic method is that the radiosity
samples are calculated only where they are needed. Almost every sample taken
will affect the illumination of the image even a little. With photon mapping
lots of photons will be shot in vain; they will just end somewhere in the scene
where they do not affect anything.

-- 
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

>  And even when OpenGL is a standard, it's not part of the ANSI C++
standard.
>Adding support for it would make povray platform-dependant.


I think Mesa brings OpenGL to the few platform that do not already have it.

All my questions are related to what I saw from Twister. I think a
progressive
refinement display from openGL with texturing to radiosity after a while of
computation, would clearly be better than multiples tries at quality Q1
trough QR.
But all this is relevant only in an interactive environnement. I understand
clearly that my wishes have no utility if the renderer runs on a render
farm.

>  I have understood that using photon mapping for global illumination is
>pretty inefficient and that the current radiosity method (with the fixes
made
>in uvpov) is a lot more efficient.

    I understand cleary the opposite after reading much publications about
radiosity. Try http://graphics.lcs.mit.edu/~henrik/papers/ to read the
original
photon maps papers. Every monte-carlo radiosity, hierachical, or
hierarchical
with substructuring seems beatten by the photon map technique.

> With photon mapping lots of photons will be shot in vain; they will just
> end somewhere in the scene where they do not affect anything.

I'm not sure to understand you, in photon mapping photons are not
shoot anywhere, they are shot only in a direction of an object, never
in a direction where is nothing.


Thank's for your answer.

Post a reply to this message

Claude Mench <c.m### [at] adilinstrumentscom> wrote:
:> With photon mapping lots of photons will be shot in vain; they will just
:> end somewhere in the scene where they do not affect anything.

: I'm not sure to understand you, in photon mapping photons are not
: shoot anywhere, they are shot only in a direction of an object, never
: in a direction where is nothing.

  Suppose that the object is hidden behind other objects and in such position
that it doesn't affect the illumination of other objects.
  Photon mapping would calculate the illumination of _every_ surface, even
if that surface is not visible nor it participates in the illumination of
the scene. If a surface is partially hidden, photon mapping will calculate
the illumination of the whole surface although it wouldn't be necessary.
  Stochastic raytracing only calculates the illumination of visible
surfaces and those surfaces that participate in the illumination. Even with
partially visible surfaces it only calculates radiosity for the visible parts
and leaves the hidden parts alone (unless this hidden part reflects light
to another visible surface).

-- 
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 Juha wrote:
> 
> Claude Mench <c.m### [at] adilinstrumentscom> wrote:
>...
> :         - Can we expect an preview mode using OpenGL (I'm
> :           aware that the tessalation of all objects existing
> :           in pov will be difficult, and infinity ojects also...)
> 
>   You answered your own question. Converting all the primitives to
> triangles is not a trivial task and probably not worth the efforts.
>   And even when OpenGL is a standard, it's not part of the ANSI C++ standard.
> Adding support for it would make povray platform-dependant.

What a bizzare answer.  The OpenGL API doesn't have anything to do with
the ANSI C++ standard.  If you want to call OpenGL functions from your
C++ code, you will find it quite easy to do.  Also, as far as being
cross platform, if you don't have drivers provided with your system you
can always use Mesa (yes, even on Macs, DOS, ...).

As far as tesselating all prims, it may be tedious but certainly not
impossible.  Other renderers manage to do it.  Given the number of times
this question comes up, it is certainly worth consideration. 
Personally, I think the preview thing belongs in a modeller rather than
a back-end renderer like POV-Ray, but it's not out of the question.

Xander

Post a reply to this message