 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Have anyone though of adding a weathered surface capability to pov?
According to the February issue of Scientific American, this is the
recipe to make ultra-realistic ray-traced images.
http://graphics.lcs.mit.edu/materials
sig.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
YES YES YES!! That would make light-years of difference in realism. I am
curious to see where this goes.
Sigmund Kyrre Aas <as### [at] stud ntnuno> wrote in message
news:38974E9C.5FDC881E@stud.ntnu.no...
> Have anyone though of adding a weathered surface capability to pov?
> According to the February issue of Scientific American, this is the
> recipe to make ultra-realistic ray-traced images.
>
> http://graphics.lcs.mit.edu/materials
>
> sig.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Have anyone though of adding a weathered surface capability to pov?
>According to the February issue of Scientific American, this is the
>recipe to make ultra-realistic ray-traced images.
>
>http://graphics.lcs.mit.edu/materials
Not this again! I though we had already talked about this. I believe you
guys concluded that it couldn't be done. Right?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <38978732@news.povray.org>, "TonyB"
<ben### [at] panamac-comnet> wrote:
> Not this again! I though we had already talked about this. I believe you
> guys concluded that it couldn't be done. Right?
It can be done. All you have to do is use the right combination of
texture maps and layered textures. You don't even need a patch.
Of course, a patch that gives a new pattern which varies depending on
the curvature of the surface of an object would be very useful for this
kind of thing. I have tried to do this, but without success, and I
haven't done any work on it lately.(although I have a couple ideas that
I would like to try out)
--
Chris Huff
e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Anistrophics (I think that's the right spelling).
Also if you want a make a nice eroded surface, the key is changing the
shininess strength in key with the amount of erosion at a particular point.
(image maps are quite useful with this, you can use the inverse brightness
of the original map as an applied map to the shininess of the surface)
--
Lance.
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
sig.
Thanks for pointing this out.
I haven't seen this months SA.
Good link.
Peter
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
You are right a combination of texture_map (or even better and
more accurate: material_map, like this you can place the erosion where
you want) and layered texture do the job! A new pattern which can do
this
automatically could be, in fact, difficult to use no?
Fabian.
Chris Huff wrote:
>
> In article <38978732@news.povray.org>, "TonyB"
> <ben### [at] panamac-comnet> wrote:
>
> > Not this again! I though we had already talked about this. I believe you
> > guys concluded that it couldn't be done. Right?
>
> It can be done. All you have to do is use the right combination of
> texture maps and layered textures. You don't even need a patch.
>
> Of course, a patch that gives a new pattern which varies depending on
> the curvature of the surface of an object would be very useful for this
> kind of thing. I have tried to do this, but without success, and I
> haven't done any work on it lately.(although I have a couple ideas that
> I would like to try out)
>
> --
> Chris Huff
> e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
> Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fabian Brau <fab### [at] umhacbe> writes:
> You are right a combination of texture_map (or even better and
> more accurate: material_map, like this you can place the erosion where
Yes, we have all those. The point was to use an algorithm which places the
erosion automatically. For instance by simulating where raindrops would
fall on a marble statue.
(I esp. liked that one: http://graphics.lcs.mit.edu/~hkp/OldPicts/venus.tif)
--
Sigmund Kyrre Aas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Sigmund Kyrre Ås" wrote:
>
> Fabian Brau <fab### [at] umhacbe> writes:
>
> > You are right a combination of texture_map (or even better and
> > more accurate: material_map, like this you can place the erosion where
>
> Yes, we have all those. The point was to use an algorithm which places the
> erosion automatically. For instance by simulating where raindrops would
> fall on a marble statue.
> (I esp. liked that one: http://graphics.lcs.mit.edu/~hkp/OldPicts/venus.tif)
>
> --
> Sigmund Kyrre Aas
As Ron mentioned I brought this up a couple of months ago in the unofficial
patches group. An excellent paper on patina's can be found at -
http://graphics.lcs.mit.edu/~dorsey/papers/patina/
--
Ken Tyler - 1300+ 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 Wed, 02 Feb 2000 02:45:14 -0800, Ken wrote:
>As Ron mentioned I brought this up a couple of months ago in the unofficial
>patches group. An excellent paper on patina's can be found at -
>
>http://graphics.lcs.mit.edu/~dorsey/papers/patina/
I didn't say anything! But we did discuss it a while ago...
Oh, and that paper is linked from the page Sigmund mentioned. So
are three other papers on similar topics.
--
These are my opinions. I do NOT speak for the POV-Team.
The superpatch: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/superpatch/
My other stuff: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker wrote:
>
> On Wed, 02 Feb 2000 02:45:14 -0800, Ken wrote:
> >As Ron mentioned I brought this up a couple of months ago in the unofficial
> >patches group. An excellent paper on patina's can be found at -
> >
> >http://graphics.lcs.mit.edu/~dorsey/papers/patina/
>
> I didn't say anything! But we did discuss it a while ago...
My mistake and my apology for mistaking you as someone else.
Will you ever forgive me ?
--
Ken Tyler - 1300+ 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 Wed, 02 Feb 2000 07:28:15 -0800, Ken wrote:
>
>
>Ron Parker wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 02 Feb 2000 02:45:14 -0800, Ken wrote:
>> >As Ron mentioned I brought this up a couple of months ago in the unofficial
>> >patches group. An excellent paper on patina's can be found at -
>> >
>> >http://graphics.lcs.mit.edu/~dorsey/papers/patina/
>>
>> I didn't say anything! But we did discuss it a while ago...
>
>My mistake and my apology for mistaking you as someone else.
>
>Will you ever forgive me ?
It's forgotten already.
--
These are my opinions. I do NOT speak for the POV-Team.
The superpatch: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/superpatch/
My other stuff: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3897EF69.BDED5ADE@umh.ac.be>, Fabian Brau
<fab### [at] umhacbe> wrote:
> A new pattern which can do this
> automatically could be, in fact, difficult to use no?
Not really, my idea was a curvature pattern, where the value depends on
the curvature of the surface. So you could have the patina only be in
concave areas, and the tips be polished metal, like the patina is worn
off in those areas. This kind of thing is already possible with simple
objects, but for more complex shapes a special pattern would be
needed.(or an image would have to be used to control it)
Another idea would be a visibility pattern, where the value of the
pattern would depend on it's visibility from a specified point.
Something similar to slope, although very different in implementation.
It could have an "orthographic" mode as well, and could be useful in
placing snow or simulating the effect of fading dyes.
--
Chris Huff
e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Huff wrote:
>
> In article <3897EF69.BDED5ADE@umh.ac.be>, Fabian Brau
> <fab### [at] umhacbe> wrote:
>
> > A new pattern which can do this
> > automatically could be, in fact, difficult to use no?
>
> Not really, my idea was a curvature pattern, where the value depends on
> the curvature of the surface. So you could have the patina only be in
> concave areas, and the tips be polished metal, like the patina is worn
> off in those areas. This kind of thing is already possible with simple
> objects, but for more complex shapes a special pattern would be
> needed.(or an image would have to be used to control it)
>
> Another idea would be a visibility pattern, where the value of the
> pattern would depend on it's visibility from a specified point.
Hmm.. could this be done algorithmically by using trace from a lot of
really odd angles to determine how "open" a certain point would be? (ie,
a convex surface could be hit from anywhere, but a deep concave one, or
a groove between two convex surfaces, could only be hit from angles
which approach perpendicular.)
I haven't messed with trace, so it's just an idea being tossed out...
--
Xplo Eristotle
http://start.at/xplosion/
"Error has no rights." - Tomas de Torquemada
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <38989C51.C2809A76@unforgettable.com>,
inq### [at] unforgettablecom wrote:
> Hmm.. could this be done algorithmically by using trace from a lot of
> really odd angles to determine how "open" a certain point would be? (ie,
> a convex surface could be hit from anywhere, but a deep concave one, or
> a groove between two convex surfaces, could only be hit from angles
> which approach perpendicular.)
That is one of the methods I have been thinking of using for curvature.
Another would be to test a bunch of points in a sphere centered around
the evaluation point, and returning the percentage which are inside the
object. Or shooting rays at parts of the surface close to the evaluation
point, and using their positions and normals to calculate the
curvature.(The last one is probably the most accurate, but is the one I
wasn't able to complete)
For the visibility pattern, a single ray(or multiple rays with a
specified jitter amount) would be shot at a specified point or along a
specified direction.
I will get to work on these and see if they are at all useful...
--
Chris Huff
e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
cadman wrote:
> YES YES YES!! That would make light-years of difference in realism. I am
> curious to see where this goes.
light years measure distance...
--
Homepage: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
___ ______________________________
| \ |_ <dav### [at] faricynet>
|_/avid |ontaine <ICQ 55354965>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Huff wrote:
>
> Not really, my idea was a curvature pattern, where the value depends on
> the curvature of the surface. So you could have the patina only be in
> concave areas, and the tips be polished metal, like the patina is worn
> off in those areas. This kind of thing is already possible with simple
> objects, but for more complex shapes a special pattern would be
> needed.(or an image would have to be used to control it)
>
I may be completely misinformed here, but couldn't something similar to the
current isosurface evaluation method be used to determine curvature?
Margus
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3898CE3A.30E36D45@peak.edu.ee>, Margus Ramst
<mar### [at] peakeduee> wrote:
> I may be completely misinformed here, but couldn't something similar to
> the
> current isosurface evaluation method be used to determine curvature?
I am not sure what you mean...as I understand it, the isosurface solver
takes samples along the ray, using the maximum gradient of the function
to determine if there is a possible intersection between each pair of
samples. I don't see how this could be applied to finding the curvature
of a specific point.
--
Chris Huff
e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > I may be completely misinformed here
:)
Margus
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
metaphorically speaking...
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> wrote in message
news:3898BB89.35AA5814@faricy.net...
> cadman wrote:
>
> > YES YES YES!! That would make light-years of difference in realism. I
am
> > curious to see where this goes.
>
> light years measure distance...
>
> --
> Homepage: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
> ___ ______________________________
> | \ |_ <dav### [at] faricynet>
> |_/avid |ontaine <ICQ 55354965>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Fontaine wrote:
> light years measure distance...
Time, speed, and distance.
--
Ken Tyler - 1300+ 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote in message <38996327.5E5FAB92@pacbell.net>...
>
>> light years measure distance...
>
>Time, speed, and distance.
>
???????????????
Explain please
Gail
*******************************************************************
* gsh### [at] monotixcoza * ERROR: COFFEE.COM not found *
* http://www.rucus.ru.ac.za/~gail/ * Insert cup and press any key *
*******************************************************************
* Definition of an upgrade: Take the old bugs out, put new ones in*
*******************************************************************
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
:> light years measure distance...
: Time, speed, and distance.
Nope, only distance.
In the same way newtons measure force, not weight, distance and time.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The weight is expressed in Newtons but the mass in Kg :).
But you are right for light year this is only for distance,
1 light year is the distance that the light do in 1 year.
This is roughly 3*10^8 (m/s)*(3600*24*365)(s)=3*10^8 * 31,536*10^6
=9.46*10^15 meters =9.46*10^12 Km.
Fabian.
Nieminen Juha wrote:
>
> Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
> :> light years measure distance...
>
> : Time, speed, and distance.
>
> Nope, only distance.
> In the same way newtons measure force, not weight, distance and time.
>
> --
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The weight is expressed in Newtons but the mass in Kg :).
> But you are right for light year this is only for distance,
> 1 light year is the distance that the light do in 1 year.
> This is roughly 3*10^8 (m/s)*(3600*24*365)(s)=3*10^8 * 31,536*10^6
> =9.46*10^15 meters =9.46*10^12 Km.
My calculator gives it as 9,460,528,404,879.4 km
(3*10^8 is a *very* rough measure (and a year is 365.24 days))
How come people never use the word megameters or gigameters or terrameters?
--
Homepage: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
___ ______________________________
| \ |_ <dav### [at] faricynet>
|_/avid |ontaine <ICQ 55354965>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fabian Brau <fab### [at] umhacbe> wrote:
: The weight is expressed in Newtons but the mass in Kg :).
Also forces are measured in Newtons.
An alternative measure for force is kilopond, which is 9.8 newtons.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Fontaine wrote:
>
> > The weight is expressed in Newtons but the mass in Kg :).
> > But you are right for light year this is only for distance,
> > 1 light year is the distance that the light do in 1 year.
> > This is roughly 3*10^8 (m/s)*(3600*24*365)(s)=3*10^8 * 31,536*10^6
> > =9.46*10^15 meters =9.46*10^12 Km.
>
> My calculator gives it as 9,460,528,404,879.4 km
> (3*10^8 is a *very* rough measure (and a year is 365.24 days))
> How come people never use the word megameters or gigameters or terrameters?
Yep but a good physicist can (must sometime) do good approximation to go
to the essence of the problem :)!
But since you like precision, here is
Tropical year (equinox to equinox) 31556925.2 secondes
Sideral year (fixed star to fixed star) 31558149.8 secondes
speed of light 299792458 m/s
So we have: 9,460,895,298,474,208.4 m (for Sideral year) :)
And the error compare to my first result is only about 9.46*10^(-3)%
The calculations are right but I am kidding :)
Fabian.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nieminen Juha wrote:
>
> Fabian Brau <fab### [at] umhacbe> wrote:
> : The weight is expressed in Newtons but the mass in Kg :).
>
> Also forces are measured in Newtons.
> An alternative measure for force is kilopond, which is 9.8 newtons.
>
I never doubted about your knowledge :)
Fabian
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hey sig. What's up?
I just got this issue tonight.
The article is fascinating and
occupying way too much of my
time. :)
The counterperson (could I *be*
more PC) said that this issue
was selling "like hotcakes."
On a personal note I add this.
My sculpture professor considered
Scientific America an 'Art' magazine.
Pretty cool, in my book.
Thanks again for your post.
Peter Warren
war### [at] hotmailcom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>The counterperson (could I *be*
> more PC) said that this issue
> was selling "like hotcakes."
My only 3D magazine (Computer Graphics World) stopped coming to the store a
few months ago. Apparently, nobody in this friggin' country is into 3D, so
there is no demand for the magazine. The last one was the November 1999
issue. :(
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Peter Warren wrote:
> Scientific America an 'Art' magazine.
^
Hehe! Have you read the Feb. Anti Gravity column or was it just a typo?
Steve Mirsky's column is the first one I read, and he seldom fails to
make me laugh!
sig.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sigmund Kyrre Aas wrote:
> Hehe! Have you read the Feb. Anti Gravity column or was it just a typo?
Was that the one about shattering baseball bats in college games?
--
Homepage: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
___ ______________________________
| \ |_ <dav### [at] faricynet>
|_/avid |ontaine <ICQ 55354965>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Scientific America
<flame bait> An oxymoron? </flame bait>
Just a joke, settle down...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
TonyB wrote:
>
> >The counterperson (could I *be*
> > more PC) said that this issue
> > was selling "like hotcakes."
>
> My only 3D magazine (Computer Graphics World) stopped coming to the store a
> few months ago. Apparently, nobody in this friggin' country is into 3D, so
> there is no demand for the magazine. The last one was the November 1999
> issue. :(
I get "Computer Graphics", the SIGGRAPH journal.
-Mark Gordon
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
TonyB wrote in message <389ae922@news.povray.org>...
>Apparently, nobody in this friggin' country is into 3D
You are wrong Oh PovBreath (bad Johnny Carson).
I know of at least one person in your 'friggin'' country
that is into 3D.
That would be you.
Nonetheless,
point taken.
I will be the first to start a "Let's get TonyB some
friggin' 3D mags" group."
Probably this will not get to far but at least you
will know that someone cares.
Peter Warren
war### [at] hotmailcom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'm half way thru this article.
I remember SA as being a
little better written in the past
than now.
Maybe it is just me.
Also it seems 'flashier' in general,
but so is all media these days.
Still interesting and I personally
was surprised with it's emphasis
on human skin.
I did not really think of this as an
issue, yet
Peter Warren
war### [at] hotmailcom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fabian Brau <fab### [at] umhacbe> wrote in message
news:389A9BFA.7D650077@umh.ac.be...
>
> But since you like precision, here is
> ...
> speed of light 299792458 m/s
Being picky - through what medium? :-)
Alf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alf Peake wrote in message <389c39c7@news.povray.org>...
>
>Fabian Brau <fab### [at] umhacbe> wrote in message
news:389A9BFA.7D650077@umh.ac.be...
>>
>> But since you like precision, here is
>> ...
>> speed of light 299792458 m/s
>
>Being picky - through what medium? :-)
Vacuum, of course.
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>I will be the first to start a "Let's get TonyB some
>friggin' 3D mags" group."
>
>Probably this will not get to far but at least you
>will know that someone cares.
Aw, thanks. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lance Birch wrote:
> > Scientific America
>
> <flame bait> An oxymoron? </flame bait>
>
> Just a joke, settle down...
I am settled but about 1991 it was ready to go
under. It then started to add a human interest angle
and has never been the same since. IOW: I canceled and
have rarely bothered with its "popular science" angle
since then.
Also unless bait is a modifier as to the type of
flame that should be one word.
--
The question is not, "Who will let me do it?"
The question is, "Who will stop me?"
Offering an apology is easier than getting permission.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Matt Giwer wrote:
> Also unless bait is a modifier as to the type of
> flame that should be one word.
Fish bait, animal bait, flame bait.
*g'night*
--
Lurking Lance.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> writes:
> Was that the one about shattering baseball bats in college games?
No, no. It was the quiz one:
<quote>
And if you borrowed the issue from your dentist's office as part of an
effort to appear erudite, just remember to call it Scinteific American,
not America. "Oh I've been reading Scientific America for years" is
probably the second most common thing a member of the staff hears, the
firste beeing, "Jeez, I would have thought a magizine editor could afford a
nicer apartment".
</quote>
--
Sigmund Kyrre Aas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Matt Giwer wrote:
> I am settled but about 1991 it was ready to go
> under. It then started to add a human interest angle
> and has never been the same since. IOW: I canceled and
> have rarely bothered with its "popular science" angle
> since then.
Anyone else here read Discover? Anyone else here think it was better
before Disney took over?
--
___ ______________________________________________________
| \ |_ <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
|_/avid |ontaine http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
"Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come" -Beatles
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <389F4E85.7F3E314F@faricy.net>, David Fontaine
<dav### [at] faricynet> wrote:
> Anyone else here read Discover? Anyone else here think it was better
> before Disney took over?
I read it, but I didn't get it before Disney, so I can't really say. I
rate it lower than Scientific American, but higher than Popular
Science(which I no longer get).
--
Chris Huff
e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Huff wrote:
> In article <389F4E85.7F3E314F@faricy.net>, David Fontaine
> <dav### [at] faricynet> wrote:
>
> > Anyone else here read Discover? Anyone else here think it was better
> > before Disney took over?
>
> I read it, but I didn't get it before Disney, so I can't really say. I
> rate it lower than Scientific American, but higher than Popular
> Science(which I no longer get).
I love SciAm but my dad refuses to subscribe. And our subscription to
Discover was never renewed.
--
___ ______________________________________________________
| \ |_ <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
|_/avid |ontaine http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
"Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come" -Beatles
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Huff <chr### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:chrishuff_99-422E1A.18314607022000@news.povray.org...
> In article <389F4E85.7F3E314F@faricy.net>, David Fontaine
> <dav### [at] faricynet> wrote:
>
> > Anyone else here read Discover? Anyone else here think it was better
> > before Disney took over?
>
> I read it, but I didn't get it before Disney, so I can't really say. I
> rate it lower than Scientific American, but higher than Popular
> Science(which I no longer get).
>
Didn't realise PS was still going. As a kid in 40's n 50's couldn't wait for my dad's
copy
together with Pop Mechanics to arrive.
Alf
http://www.peake42.freeserve.co.uk/
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Alf_Peake/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
