How hard could it be to have POV primitives come with default values? So
that if you simply wrote box{} you would get an unpigmented box of unit size
at the origin. Since most people use a unit, at origin object, then scale
and translate, it could save tons of typing.

    Of course they should be able to be over-rode...

    Most of the reason I use the insert menu is so that I don't have to type
in the default values myself. Not sure how that would work on cones
though...

Post a reply to this message

Bill DeWitt wrote:
> 
>     How hard could it be to have POV primitives come with default values? So
> that if you simply wrote box{} you would get an unpigmented box of unit size
> at the origin. Since most people use a unit, at origin object, then scale
> and translate, it could save tons of typing.

Hum....  I do get your point and in some cases it could be a good idea,
but

box {
    scale < 2, 2, 2 >
    translate < 5, 5, 5 >
}

is actually more characters than

box {
    < 5, 5, 5 >
    < 7, 7, 7 >
}

> 
>     Of course they should be able to be over-rode...
> 

Of course, what's the use of default values if they can't be
over-ridden?

>     Most of the reason I use the insert menu is so that I don't have to type
> in the default values myself. Not sure how that would work on cones
> though...

Call me old school, but i prefer typing than getting my and hand over to
the mouse and select primitives from the menu.

Something I'd like to be able to do is automatically place objects
relative to others without having to do all the trig myself, but I guess
that could go in a modeler.  The POV-team probably has enough headaches
to resolve as it is.

-- 
Francois Labreque | The surest sign of the existence of extra-
     flabreq      | terrestrial intelligence is that they never
        @         | bothered to come down here and visit us!
  attglobal.net                                  - Calvin

Post a reply to this message

"Francois Labreque" <fla### [at] attglobalnet> wrote :
>
> Hum....  I do get your point and in some cases it could be a good idea,
> but
>
> box {
>     scale < 2, 2, 2 >
>     translate < 5, 5, 5 >
> }
>
> is actually more characters than
>
> box {
>     < 5, 5, 5 >
>     < 7, 7, 7 >
> }
>

    True, but how often do you do things like that? I almost -always- make
objects at origin then scale and translate. The few times I don't are
usually when I want to connect a cylinder or cone to certain points.

Post a reply to this message

Bill DeWitt wrote:
> 
> "Francois Labreque" <fla### [at] attglobalnet> wrote :
> >
> > Hum....  I do get your point and in some cases it could be a good idea,
> > but
> >
> > box {
> >     scale < 2, 2, 2 >
> >     translate < 5, 5, 5 >
> > }
> >
> > is actually more characters than
> >
> > box {
> >     < 5, 5, 5 >
> >     < 7, 7, 7 >
> > }
> >
> 
>     True, but how often do you do things like that? I almost -always- make
> objects at origin then scale and translate. The few times I don't are
> usually when I want to connect a cylinder or cone to certain points.

I nearly always create objects at their final size, apart from non equal
scaling.
But then I'd do sphere{0,5 scale<1,2,1>} rather than sphere{0,1
scale<5,10,5>}

PoD.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 12 Mar 2000 07:56:08 -0500, Bill DeWitt wrote:
>Since most people use a unit, at origin object, then scale
>and translate, it could save tons of typing.

Who is this "most people" you talk about?  Most modelers do that, but
I would think most people make the box where they want it.  I know I
do.

Post a reply to this message

Ron Parker wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Mar 2000 07:56:08 -0500, Bill DeWitt wrote:
> >Since most people use a unit, at origin object, then scale
> >and translate, it could save tons of typing.
>
> Who is this "most people" you talk about?  Most modelers do that, but
> I would think most people make the box where they want it.  I know I
> do.

One of the major reasons that I use Moray, instead of hand coding, is
that I can't get my brane to work in the mode that will understand the
box code.

No matter how much I work on it, it's always a struggle. Having a default
I can scale is easier to understand. I can easily visualize a box scaled
to <1, 2, 5>, but a box defined by corners <-0.5, -1, -2.5>  <0.5, 1,
2.5> is not something I can see in my mind.

Post a reply to this message

Simon de Vet wrote:

> No matter how much I work on it, it's always a struggle. Having a default
> I can scale is easier to understand. I can easily visualize a box scaled
> to <1, 2, 5>, but a box defined by corners <-0.5, -1, -2.5>  <0.5, 1,
> 2.5> is not something I can see in my mind.

Both methods require repetitious use before you become comfortable with
them. When I was first learning Pov I bounced back and forth between
various modellers I was evaluating and hand coding. Personally I found
more power in the hand coding environment but had I found a modeller
I was comfortable with I might have swung the other way. Regardless
I still think that with practice you would learn to use the various
control points of a box with the same ease that you do the scale feature
in your modeller of choice.

Besides defining a unit box is no more difficult than

box{-.5,.5}

Defining a unit sphere

sphere{0,1}

Defining unit cylinders you have a choice of which axis to align it to

cylinder {x*-.5, x*.5, 1}
cylinder {y*-.5, y*.5, 1}
cylinder {z*-.5, z*.5, 1}

etc.

-- 
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

Ron Parker wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 12 Mar 2000 07:56:08 -0500, Bill DeWitt wrote:
> >Since most people use a unit, at origin object, then scale
> >and translate, it could save tons of typing.
> 
> Who is this "most people" you talk about?  Most modelers do that, but
> I would think most people make the box where they want it.  I know I
> do.

The place where this "feature" of all modellers I've seen gets me is
with the cylinder.  Whenever I use a cylinder, it's along the lines of

  cylinder { <3,2,4>,<1,1,3>,.5 }

which with most modellers has to be done by calculating the scaling and
rotation outside of the program, and then entering them by hand.  This
is why I don't use them.

Regards,
John
-- 
ICQ: 46085459

Post a reply to this message

Francois Labreque wrote:

> box {
>     scale < 2, 2, 2 >
>     translate < 5, 5, 5 >
> }
>
> is actually more characters than
>
> box {
>     < 5, 5, 5 >
>     < 7, 7, 7 >
> }

or you could do box { 5 7 } :-)

--
___     _______________________________________________
 | \     |_          <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
 |_/avid |ontaine        http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/

"The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad." -Dali

Post a reply to this message

"Ron Parker" <ron### [at] povrayorg> wrote :
>
> Who is this "most people" you talk about?  Most modelers do that, but
> I would think most people make the box where they want it.  I know I
> do.
>

    Perhaps I am mistaken. I supposed that since the docs recommend it, new
users are often told to do it, and it make sense to do so in terms of
declarations, that most people would do so.

    Personally, BTW, I don't care about character count. My insert menu box
looks like:

/////////////// box ////////////////////////
box {
     < -0.5, -0.5, -0.5 >,
     <  0.5,  0.5,  0.5 >
     scale      < 1.0, 1.0, 1.0 >
     rotate     < 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 >
     translate  < 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 >
     texture { DefaultTexture }
        } // end box

    ... I do it like this so that I have to type less. I mouse delete
anything I don't need and modify the rest to my requirements.

       If I am putting it in a loop or something I will chop it down, but
otherwise...

Post a reply to this message

Ron Parker wrote:
> 
> Who is this "most people" you talk about?  Most modelers do that, but
> I would think most people make the box where they want it.  I know I
> do.

Only if you want it aligned to the major axes.
I usually consider it a good idea to create objects at the origin and then apply
the necessary transformations. I feel it gives more control over the final
placement of the object, and the look of the texture.

Margus

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 04:03:50 +0200, Margus Ramst wrote:
>Ron Parker wrote:
>> 
>> Who is this "most people" you talk about?  Most modelers do that, but
>> I would think most people make the box where they want it.  I know I
>> do.
>
>Only if you want it aligned to the major axes.
>I usually consider it a good idea to create objects at the origin and then apply
>the necessary transformations. I feel it gives more control over the final
>placement of the object, and the look of the texture.

That's true; I do create boxes that won't be axis-aligned at the origin, but
I still create them the correct size.

Post a reply to this message

Does anyone remember the shapes.inc file?
Make changes there and use predefined shapes from there.
Ken wrote:
> 
> Simon de Vet wrote:
> 
> > No matter how much I work on it, it's always a struggle. Having a default
> > I can scale is easier to understand. I can easily visualize a box scaled
> > to <1, 2, 5>, but a box defined by corners <-0.5, -1, -2.5>  <0.5, 1,
> > 2.5> is not something I can see in my mind.
> 
> Both methods require repetitious use before you become comfortable with
> them. When I was first learning Pov I bounced back and forth between
> various modellers I was evaluating and hand coding. Personally I found
> more power in the hand coding environment but had I found a modeller
> I was comfortable with I might have swung the other way. Regardless
> I still think that with practice you would learn to use the various
> control points of a box with the same ease that you do the scale feature
> in your modeller of choice.
> 
> Besides defining a unit box is no more difficult than
> 
> box{-.5,.5}
> 
> Defining a unit sphere
> 
> sphere{0,1}
> 
> Defining unit cylinders you have a choice of which axis to align it to
> 
> cylinder {x*-.5, x*.5, 1}
> cylinder {y*-.5, y*.5, 1}
> cylinder {z*-.5, z*.5, 1}
> 
> etc.
> 
> --
> Ken Tyler -  1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
> http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

-- 
Mr. Art

"Often the appearance of reality is more important 
than the reality of the appearance."
Bill DeWitt 2000

Post a reply to this message

"mr.art" wrote:
> 
> Does anyone remember the shapes.inc file?
> Make changes there and use predefined shapes from there.

Actually for something like using a unit sized box I find it easier
to type

box{-.5,.5}

rather than

#include "shapes.inc"

object {cube}

-- 
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

Francois Labreque <fla### [at] attglobalnet> wrote in message
news:38CBAF9C.7C199D2B@attglobal.net...
>
> Something I'd like to be able to do is automatically place objects
> relative to others without having to do all the trig myself, but I guess

Now there's something I could have used at times - translate_relative as opposed to
the
existing translate_absolute.

Alf

http://www.peake42.freeserve.co.uk/
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Alf_Peake/

Post a reply to this message

David Fontaine wrote:
> 
> Francois Labreque wrote:
> 
> > box {
> >     scale < 2, 2, 2 >
> >     translate < 5, 5, 5 >
> > }
> >
> > is actually more characters than
> >
> > box {
> >     < 5, 5, 5 >
> >     < 7, 7, 7 >
> > }
> 
> or you could do box { 5 7 } :-)

OK.  The choice of numbers wasn't probably the best to illustrate my
point, but I think it came across nevertheless.   Anyway, most of my
boxes look more like this:

box {
    < 2.875, 5.5, 3.6333333 >
    < 7.142857, 9.3, 4 >
}

Which is wayyyyyyyyy easier than 

box {
    scale < 4.267857, 3.8, 0.2666666 >
    translate < 7.642857, 9.8, 4.5 >
}

-- 
Francois Labreque | It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it
     flabreq      | is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed,
        @         | the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a 
  attglobal.net     warning, it is by caffeine alone I set my mind in
motion.
                               - Unknown

Post a reply to this message

"Francois Labreque" <fla### [at] attglobalnet> wrote :
>
> box {
>     < 2.875, 5.5, 3.6333333 >
>     < 7.142857, 9.3, 4 >
> }
>

    Modeler syndrome.

Post a reply to this message

Ron Parker <ron### [at] povrayorg> wrote in message
news:slr### [at] linuxparkerrfwicom...
> On Sun, 12 Mar 2000 07:56:08 -0500, Bill DeWitt wrote:
> >Since most people use a unit, at origin object, then scale
> >and translate, it could save tons of typing.
>
> Who is this "most people" you talk about?  Most modelers do that, but
> I would think most people make the box where they want it.  I know I
> do.

I'm suprised - I'm trying to write a short newbie tutorial on object
transformations, and one of my general rules is always create objects with a
known point at <0,0,0>. Don't you lose track of where you objects are going
to end up if you scale them? (or at least find it harder).

Post a reply to this message

Tom Melly wrote:

> I'm suprised - I'm trying to write a short newbie tutorial on object
> transformations, and one of my general rules is always create objects with a
> known point at <0,0,0>. Don't you lose track of where you objects are going
> to end up if you scale them? (or at least find it harder).

I completely agree. When I was a newbie, my permanent problem was that
I defined objects "directly" and always lost them after a few translates and
rotates.
I often had to "pile" transform statements to obtain a desired effect, and lost
a
lot of time looking for disappearing primitives (no VFAQ then !).
This problem was solved when I started creating them at <0,0,0>
and applied the transforms afterwards. I find it easier to apply textures too.
This can't be a general rule, though. Chain-like objects can be often created
more
easily using absolute coordinates (when using loops at least) since the end
points
of a primitive can be used as the starting points of the next.

G.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:27:07 -0000, Tom Melly wrote:
>I'm suprised - I'm trying to write a short newbie tutorial on object
>transformations, and one of my general rules is always create objects with a
>known point at <0,0,0>. Don't you lose track of where you objects are going
>to end up if you scale them? (or at least find it harder).

If you create it where you want it, you don't need to scale it.  I don't see
the problem here.

Okay, to be honest, I still follow the rule of creating things at the origin.
But if I'm going to make a simple stool, I do this:

 union {
   box {<-6, 36, -6>,<6,37,6>}
   intersection {
     box {<-8,0,-8>,<8,36.5,8>}
     cylinder { <-5,0,-5>, <-4,36.5,-4>, .5 }
     cylinder { < 5,0,-5>, < 4,36.5,-4>, .5 }
     cylinder { <-5,0, 5>, <-4,36.5, 4>, .5 }
     cylinder { < 5,0, 5>, < 4,36.5, 4>, .5 }
   }
 }

That is, I create the parts of the stool where they should be, relative to the
fixed point on the stool that I have chosen to have at the origin (in this case,
a point on the floor directly under the center.)  To me, this looks a lot 
cleaner than trying to create and translate and rotate and scale all those 
components to get the desired result.  I will still translate and rotate the 
stool to put it where I want it (but I won't scale it, because it's already to 
scale.)

The exception, of course, is when I need an ellipsoid or a torus.  Those have to
be created at the origin.  (In fact, I wish there were an alternate syntax for
toruses that took a center and an axis so I could work with them without having
to wave my left hand around to figure out the rotations.)

-- 
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" <ron### [at] povrayorg> wrote :
>  (In fact, I wish there were an alternate syntax for
> toruses that took a center and an axis so I could work with them without
having
> to wave my left hand around to figure out the rotations.)

    I have almost convinced my family and friends that waving your hands in
the air, staring into space and  even pounding one hand against your temple
while apparently grasping at and manipulating something invisible with your
eyes tightly shut is the way we communicate with the POVray Program Goddess.

Post a reply to this message

On 12 Mar 2000 15:11:48 -0500, ron### [at] povrayorg (Ron Parker)
wrote:
>Who is this "most people" you talk about?  Most modelers do that, but
>I would think most people make the box where they want it.  I know I
>do.

I usually do as well, but it might be handy for include files that are
trying to be as universal as possible. Having all you include-file
objects oriented in a similar manner can be handy in the main scene
file.

Later,
Glen Berry

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, Glen Berry wrote:

> On 12 Mar 2000 15:11:48 -0500, ron### [at] povrayorg (Ron Parker)
> wrote:
> >Who is this "most people" you talk about?  Most modelers do that, but
> >I would think most people make the box where they want it.  I know I
> >do.
> 
> I usually do as well, but it might be handy for include files that are
> trying to be as universal as possible. Having all you include-file
> objects oriented in a similar manner can be handy in the main scene
> file.

so my method of making ALL my objects at 0,0,0 and then translating them
where I want them is umm....non-standard?:) (I swear I make everything at
0,0,0 then translate and rotate to where it looks right) I find it easier
but then hehehe :)


 
> Later,
> Glen Berry
> 
>

Post a reply to this message

cre### [at] belialrenonvus wrote:

> so my method of making ALL my objects at 0,0,0 and then translating them
> where I want them is umm....non-standard?:) (I swear I make everything at
> 0,0,0 then translate and rotate to where it looks right) I find it easier
> but then hehehe :)

Not at all. Your method has considerable merit and is quite popular.
There are a lot of good reasons for specifying objects at the origin
and then manipulating them from there.

-- 
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 Tue, 14 Mar 2000, Ken wrote:

> 
> 
> cre### [at] belialrenonvus wrote:
> 
> > so my method of making ALL my objects at 0,0,0 and then translating them
> > where I want them is umm....non-standard?:) (I swear I make everything at
> > 0,0,0 then translate and rotate to where it looks right) I find it easier
> > but then hehehe :)
> 
> Not at all. Your method has considerable merit and is quite popular.
> There are a lot of good reasons for specifying objects at the origin
> and then manipulating them from there.

Good!:) btw since we're kinda on the subject, how can I shorten the 
box {<-0.5,-0.5,-0.5>,<0.5,0.5,0.5> } 

see I always make my boxes that big then scale the suckers to whatever I'm
doing, the thing is typing all those 0.5's can be tiring (I get around
that with cut and paste, but still if there is some shortform...I'd love
to know it :)
 
> -- 
> 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

In article 
<Pin### [at] belialrenonvus>, 
<cre### [at] belialrenonvus> wrote:

> Good!:) btw since we're kinda on the subject, how can I shorten the 
> box {<-0.5,-0.5,-0.5>,<0.5,0.5,0.5> } 
> 
> see I always make my boxes that big then scale the suckers to 
> whatever I'm doing, the thing is typing all those 0.5's can be tiring 
> (I get around that with cut and paste, but still if there is some 
> shortform...I'd love to know it :)

You could use this:
#declare Box = box {<-0.5,-0.5,-0.5>,<0.5,0.5,0.5> }

And then make your boxes with
object {Box
...
}

Or you can leave the 0's out:
box {<-.5,-.5,-.5>,<.5,.5,.5> }
And to shorten it further, you can use the feature of POV that promotes 
floats to vectors when necessary:
box {-0.5, 0.5}
or
box {-.5,.5}

This isn't as easy to immediately understand, though, and is just as 
long as using a Box variable.


If you really want to eliminate keypresses, try this:
#macro Box()
box {<-.5,-.5,-.5>,<.5,.5,.5>
#end

You would use the macro this way:

Box()
...object stuff, textures, etc go here...
}

You could use a shorter name for the macro, but you can't eliminate the 
parentheses.

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

Post a reply to this message

cre### [at] belialrenonvus wrote:
> Good!:) btw since we're kinda on the subject, how can I shorten the
> box {<-0.5,-0.5,-0.5>,<0.5,0.5,0.5> }

Some typical shorthand primitives:

box {<-0.5,-0.5,-0.5>,<0.5,0.5,0.5> }

box{-.5,.5) // a unit box at the origin


sphere {<0,0,0>,1 }

sphere{0,1) // a unit sphere at the origin


cylinder {<-.5, 0, 0>, <.5, 0, 0>, 1 }

cylinder{x*-.5,x*.5,1} // 1 unit long in the x direction with a dia of 1


cone {<0, -.5, 0>, 1, <0, .5, 0>, 0 }

cone{y*-.5,1,y*.5,0} // 1 unit high with a base of 1 and a point of zero
                     // centered at the origin



-- 
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 Tue, 14 Mar 2000, Chris Huff wrote:

> In article 
> <Pin### [at] belialrenonvus>, 
> <cre### [at] belialrenonvus> wrote:
> 
> > Good!:) btw since we're kinda on the subject, how can I shorten the 
> > box {<-0.5,-0.5,-0.5>,<0.5,0.5,0.5> } 
> > 
> > see I always make my boxes that big then scale the suckers to 
> > whatever I'm doing, the thing is typing all those 0.5's can be tiring 
> > (I get around that with cut and paste, but still if there is some 
> > shortform...I'd love to know it :)
> 
> You could use this:
> #declare Box = box {<-0.5,-0.5,-0.5>,<0.5,0.5,0.5> }
> 
> And then make your boxes with
> object {Box
> ...
> }

Doh! I should have thought of that! :) 

 
> Or you can leave the 0's out:
> box {<-.5,-.5,-.5>,<.5,.5,.5> }
> And to shorten it further, you can use the feature of POV that promotes 
> floats to vectors when necessary:
> box {-0.5, 0.5}
> or
> box {-.5,.5}
>

Yeah...ok

> This isn't as easy to immediately understand, though, and is just as 
> long as using a Box variable.
> 
> 
> If you really want to eliminate keypresses, try this:
> #macro Box()
> box {<-.5,-.5,-.5>,<.5,.5,.5>
> #end
> 
> You would use the macro this way:
> 
> Box()
> ...object stuff, textures, etc go here...
> }
> 
> You could use a shorter name for the macro, but you can't eliminate the 
> parentheses.

Kewl.....sorta like #define eh? but without the object{} thing... Can I do
that for CSG stuff too? I use CSG a LOT (pages of the stuff) this could
save some typing :)  

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

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, Ken wrote:

> 
> 
> cre### [at] belialrenonvus wrote:
> > Good!:) btw since we're kinda on the subject, how can I shorten the
> > box {<-0.5,-0.5,-0.5>,<0.5,0.5,0.5> }
> 
> Some typical shorthand primitives:
> 
> box {<-0.5,-0.5,-0.5>,<0.5,0.5,0.5> }
> 
> box{-.5,.5) // a unit box at the origin
> 
> 
> sphere {<0,0,0>,1 }
> 
> sphere{0,1) // a unit sphere at the origin
> 
> 
> cylinder {<-.5, 0, 0>, <.5, 0, 0>, 1 }
> 
> cylinder{x*-.5,x*.5,1} // 1 unit long in the x direction with a dia of 1
> 
> 
> cone {<0, -.5, 0>, 1, <0, .5, 0>, 0 }
> 
> cone{y*-.5,1,y*.5,0} // 1 unit high with a base of 1 and a point of zero
>                      // centered at the origin
> 

so y* = 1 ? (or x* = 1?) or is it y (multiplied by) ?





> 
> -- 
> 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 Tue, 14 Mar 2000 17:22:43 -0800, <cre### [at] belialrenonvus> wrote:

>> You would use the macro this way:
>> 
>> Box()
<SNIP>
>Kewl.....sorta like #define eh? but without the object{} thing... Can I do
>that for CSG stuff too? I use CSG a LOT (pages of the stuff) this could
>save some typing :)  

You might save some typing, but keep in mind that it will take longer
to parse. This might not be a problem, unless you have several
elements in your scene described using macros.

Later,
Glen Berry

Post a reply to this message

cre### [at] belialrenonvus wrote:

> so y* = 1 ? (or x* = 1?) or is it y (multiplied by) ?

sphere{< 1,0, 0>, 1} = sphere{x, 1}

sphere{<-1,0, 0>, 1} = sphere{-x, 1}

sphere{< 1,1, 0>, 1} = sphere{x+y, 1}

sphere{<-1,1,-1>, 1} = sphere{-x+y+-z, 1}

-- 
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 Tue, 14 Mar 2000 09:03:27 -0500 "Bill DeWitt"
<the### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:

>    I have almost convinced my family and friends that waving your hands in
>the air, staring into space and  even pounding one hand against your temple
>while apparently grasping at and manipulating something invisible with your
>eyes tightly shut is the way we communicate with the POVray Program Goddess.
>

  You are correct, Bill, but one can also go blind using that method
<g>.

-- 
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

On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 16:24:38 -0800, Ken wrote:
>sphere{0,1) // a unit sphere at the origin

That's not a unit sphere.  It's a sphere of unit radius.

-- 
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

cre### [at] belialrenonvus wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, Ken wrote:
> 
> > cone{y*-.5,1,y*.5,0} // 1 unit high with a base of 1 and a point of zero
> >                      // centered at the origin
> >
> 
> so y* = 1 ? (or x* = 1?) or is it y (multiplied by) ?
> 

In POV speak
 y = <0,1,0>
so
 y*0.5 = <0,1,0>*0.5 = <0,0.5,0>
also .5 = 0.5

PoD.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, Ken wrote:

> 
> 
> cre### [at] belialrenonvus wrote:
> 
> > so y* = 1 ? (or x* = 1?) or is it y (multiplied by) ?
> 
> sphere{< 1,0, 0>, 1} = sphere{x, 1}
> 
> sphere{<-1,0, 0>, 1} = sphere{-x, 1}
> 
> sphere{< 1,1, 0>, 1} = sphere{x+y, 1}
> 
> sphere{<-1,1,-1>, 1} = sphere{-x+y+-z, 1}

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ok :)


> 
> -- 
> 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 Thu, 16 Mar 2000, PoD wrote:

> cre### [at] belialrenonvus wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, Ken wrote:
> > 
> > > cone{y*-.5,1,y*.5,0} // 1 unit high with a base of 1 and a point of zero
> > >                      // centered at the origin
> > >
> > 
> > so y* = 1 ? (or x* = 1?) or is it y (multiplied by) ?
> > 
> 
> In POV speak
>  y = <0,1,0>
> so
>  y*0.5 = <0,1,0>*0.5 = <0,0.5,0>
> also .5 = 0.5


gotcha! Once I use this a few times, it'll stick :) (grabs some crazy
glue...)

 
> PoD.
> 
>

Post a reply to this message

cre### [at] belialrenonvus wrote:

> so my method of making ALL my objects at 0,0,0 and then translating them
> where I want them is umm....non-standard?:) (I swear I make everything at
> 0,0,0 then translate and rotate to where it looks right) I find it easier
> but then hehehe :)

	Should you get into animation, that is the only way to do it.
Just make variables rather than absolutes for everything that
moves. 

-- 
<A href="http://www.giwersworld.org">A free internet for a free
people.</a>

Post a reply to this message

Ron Parker wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 16:24:38 -0800, Ken wrote:
> >sphere{0,1) // a unit sphere at the origin
>
> That's not a unit sphere.  It's a sphere of unit radius.
>

Well, the sphere with unit radius is commonly referred to as the unit
sphere.

alberto

Post a reply to this message

"Alberto" <ame### [at] mausbve> wrote :
>
> Well, the sphere with unit radius is commonly referred to as the unit
> sphere.
>

    That's why I make all my spheres with a 0.5 radius, so they will be more
reasonably called 'unit' spheres. So that like a unit box, if I copy one
exactly one unit away, they will just touch.

Post a reply to this message

Bill DeWitt wrote:

> "Francois Labreque" <fla### [at] attglobalnet> wrote :
> >
> > box {
> >     < 2.875, 5.5, 3.6333333 >
> >     < 7.142857, 9.3, 4 >
> > }
> >
>
>     Modeler syndrome.

Why, do you use box { <2+7/8,5+1/2...?

--
___     _______________________________________________
 | \     |_          <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
 |_/avid |ontaine        http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/

"The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad." -Dali

Post a reply to this message

Francois Labreque wrote:

> OK.  The choice of numbers wasn't probably the best to illustrate my
> point, but I think it came across nevertheless.   Anyway, most of my
> boxes look more like this:
>
> box {
>     < 2.875, 5.5, 3.6333333 >
>     < 7.142857, 9.3, 4 >
> }
>
> Which is wayyyyyyyyy easier than
>
> box {
>     scale < 4.267857, 3.8, 0.2666666 >
>     translate < 7.642857, 9.8, 4.5 >
> }

I suppose it depends what you're using it for. If you want a box of a
certain size at a certain location, use the latter. If the endpoints of the
box are of significance, use the former. Like when I do LEGO stuff, the
endpoints are the extent of the piece, so I use the first one...

--
___     _______________________________________________
 | \     |_          <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
 |_/avid |ontaine        http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/

"The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad." -Dali

Post a reply to this message

"David Fontaine" <dav### [at] faricynet> wrote :
> >
> >     Modeler syndrome.
>
> Why, do you use box { <2+7/8,5+1/2...?
>

You stopped before it got hairy. Mouse placement of objects gives you odd
decimal values like the 3.6333333 or 7.142857. Often you see modeler files
that have values like 12.0023 in scenes that clearly do not have that kind
of a problem with tolerances.

    In this example, with any camera more than a unit or two away from the
object, 3.63 would have done, and probably 3.6 would be as good.

    You see the same thing in textures done with sliders, rgb < 0.992342,
0.0, 0.0 > = red, AFAICT.

Post a reply to this message

Bill DeWitt wrote:

> You stopped before it got hairy. Mouse placement of objects gives you odd
> decimal values like the 3.6333333 or 7.142857. Often you see modeler files
> that have values like 12.0023 in scenes that clearly do not have that kind
> of a problem with tolerances.

That is one of the reasons I hate using a mouse in a 3D graphics
environment. Their precision sucks big time.

-- 
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 Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Ken wrote:

> 
> 
> Bill DeWitt wrote:
> 
> > You stopped before it got hairy. Mouse placement of objects gives you odd
> > decimal values like the 3.6333333 or 7.142857. Often you see modeler files
> > that have values like 12.0023 in scenes that clearly do not have that kind
> > of a problem with tolerances.
> 
> That is one of the reasons I hate using a mouse in a 3D graphics
> environment. Their precision sucks big time.

Yeah........hand scripting is so precise...there is something elegant
about it :)

I mean a box thats 1,1,1 units in size is elegant....but 1.00345, 1.00673,
1.00892 ? looks messy (well at least I think so)

 
> -- 
> 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 Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Matt Giwer wrote:

> cre### [at] belialrenonvus wrote:
> 
> > so my method of making ALL my objects at 0,0,0 and then translating them
> > where I want them is umm....non-standard?:) (I swear I make everything at
> > 0,0,0 then translate and rotate to where it looks right) I find it easier
> > but then hehehe :)
> 
> 	Should you get into animation, that is the only way to do it.
> Just make variables rather than absolutes for everything that
> moves. 

Thats good to know....:)

 
> -- 
> <A href="http://www.giwersworld.org">A free internet for a free
> people.</a>
> 
>

Post a reply to this message

Bill DeWitt wrote:
> 
> "David Fontaine" <dav### [at] faricynet> wrote :
> > >
> > >     Modeler syndrome.
> >
> > Why, do you use box { <2+7/8,5+1/2...?
> >
> 
> You stopped before it got hairy. Mouse placement of objects gives you odd
> decimal values like the 3.6333333 or 7.142857.

What is so odd about 3.63333333 ( 4 - 11/30 ) or 7.142857 ( 7 + 1/7 )? 
I might be a bit picky about precision, but not everything in this
universe is neatly placed along unit coordinate lines!

 Often you see modeler files
> that have values like 12.0023 in scenes that clearly do not have that kind
> of a problem with tolerances.

That's why I haven't used modelers in a looong time.

> 
>     In this example, with any camera more than a unit or two away from the
> object, 3.63 would have done, and probably 3.6 would be as good.

Agreed.

> 
>     You see the same thing in textures done with sliders, rgb < 0.992342,
> 0.0, 0.0 > = red, AFAICT.

Only to the untrained eye :)

-- 
Francois Labreque | It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it
     flabreq      | is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed,
        @         | the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a 
  attglobal.net   | warning, it is by caffeine alone I set my mind in
motion.
                               - Stolen from Badger's .sig file

Post a reply to this message