I know that I'm still a newbie here and I don't want to make any waves, but
here are a few of my suggestions to add to the next version of pov. I'm sure
many of these have probably been brought up before but I just wanted to
throw in my 2 cents. Pov is a great program but it could be so much
better!!! With no further ado here is my short list of meager suggestions:

1. Everyone knows pov is slow as molasses. Lets just throw out the old
deprecated C and convert the whole program to ASM. Everyone has Pentiums now
anyway.

2. With the speed afforded to us from improvement number one we can now
throw out all the old hacks that give us refection and refraction in favor
for a much better system: Forward ray tracing.

3. I don't know about you guys but this typing crap is hard. It's the new
millennium and time for a GUI. Lets mimic a proven formula for productivity
and intuitiveness. A system that is both easy to use and feature rich. All
you real CG experts of course know I'm talking about the interface found in
Bryce! I mean those arrows are so pretty! How come pov doesn't have pretty
arrows?

4. I like listening to music when I'm modeling, but it's such a pain to
alt-tab back and forth between pov and winamp, why don't we make pov a
winamp plug-in?

5. Speaking of winamp, isn't about time that pov's UI was skinnable?!

6. CSG would be a lot easier if we had more primitives to work with. Cubes
and spheres were great in preschool but the world is a complex place and we
need complex shapes to describe it. Here are my suggestions for some new
primitives: Dodecahedron, Buckyball, Leggo brick, Shreck

7. Its so much fun to return to the pov site after the beta expires to get
the next one! It makes sure I visit regularly and I have the newest version.
I think that the final version should expire as well, even if there aren't
any new versions to download.

8. While I commend whoever wrote the tutorials, FAQs, and docs that come
with pov we all know that nobody reads them. How about we convert them all
to wav files? If pov becomes a winamp plugin then it would integrate nicely.

I hope the dev team will take these suggestions to heart when considering
what features to add to pov4. Thanks for hearing me out!

Corey

Post a reply to this message

> 1. Everyone knows pov is slow as molasses. Lets just throw out the old
> deprecated C and convert the whole program to ASM. Everyone has
> Pentiums now anyway.

LOL, I remember when I was foolish enough to suggest things like this. Good
times, good times... :)

> 2. With the speed afforded to us from improvement number one we can now
> throw out all the old hacks that give us refection and refraction in favor
> for a much better system: Forward ray tracing.

ROFL...

> 3. I don't know about you guys but this typing crap is hard. It's the new
> millennium and time for a GUI. Lets mimic a proven formula for
productivity
> and intuitiveness. A system that is both easy to use and feature rich. All
> you real CG experts of course know I'm talking about the interface found
in
> Bryce! I mean those arrows are so pretty! How come pov doesn't have pretty
> arrows?

ROFLMAO... Now, seriously, typing rules, but if you want a modelling GUI
look into Moray, Hamapatch, and/or Rhino.

> 4. I like listening to music when I'm modeling, but it's such a pain to
> alt-tab back and forth between pov and winamp, why don't we make pov a
> winamp plug-in?

Waaahhhaahahaha... You're hilarious!

> 5. Speaking of winamp, isn't about time that pov's UI was skinnable?!

A cute idea, but a waste of precious memory/cycles.

> 6. CSG would be a lot easier if we had more primitives to work with. Cubes
> and spheres were great in preschool but the world is a complex place and
we
> need complex shapes to describe it. Here are my suggestions for some new
> primitives: Dodecahedron, Buckyball, Leggo brick, Shreck

You're seriously underestimating CSG and being lazy.

> 7. Its so much fun to return to the pov site after the beta expires to get
> the next one! It makes sure I visit regularly and I have the newest
version.
> I think that the final version should expire as well, even if there aren't
> any new versions to download.

???

> 8. While I commend whoever wrote the tutorials, FAQs, and docs that come
> with pov we all know that nobody reads them. How about we convert them all
> to wav files? If pov becomes a winamp plugin then it would integrate
nicely.

Feel free to record yourself reading them...

Post a reply to this message

I think this wish list proves how important it is to get fresh ideas and
inspiration from the new users who join our community.

Also, as Corey have already explained how the features should work, the
actual implementation can't be very difficult. I mean, the hard work of
coming up with the feature ideas has been done already.

Of course, changes like these can't be done overnight. It takes hard work
from the developers and also quite a while to debug. We can't have it all at
once. So I suggest that the Shreck primitive gets implemented in beta 14,
the forward raytracing in beta 15 and the rest in beta 16.

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World:  http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Feb 16)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Ring:  http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

Might as well blow it into a neural chip and implant it in your cerebral
cortex.  Add a tasp and you can live your days out in a closet with a slow
drip of fluids into your favorite vein.

Cheers!

Chip Shults
My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip

Post a reply to this message

Corey Woodworth wrote:
> 2. With the speed afforded to us from improvement number one we can
> now throw out all the old hacks that give us refection and refraction
> in favor for a much better system: Forward ray tracing.

That's what photons are for.

> 5. Speaking of winamp, isn't about time that pov's UI was skinnable?!

I thought it was.  The buttons, at least.

> 6. CSG would be a lot easier if we had more primitives to work with.
> Cubes and spheres were great in preschool but the world is a complex
> place and we need complex shapes to describe it. Here are my suggestions
> for some new primitives: Dodecahedron, Buckyball, Leggo brick, Shreck

Some more suggestions for primitives:
Point
Turtle (you can draw anything with a turtle ^_^)
Moebius strip
Rounded Sphere (as companion to rounded box)

> 7. Its so much fun to return to the pov site after the beta expires to
> get the next one! It makes sure I visit regularly and I have the newest
> version. I think that the final version should expire as well, even if
> there aren't any new versions to download.

I like this one.

> 8. While I commend whoever wrote the tutorials, FAQs, and docs that
> come with pov we all know that nobody reads them.

I occasionally glance at them.  Backwards.

- Tim Cook
http://empyrean.scifi-fantasy.com

Post a reply to this message

In article <3c9542bf$1@news.povray.org>,
 "Sir Charles W. Shults III" <aic### [at] cflrrcom> wrote:

>     Might as well blow it into a neural chip and implant it in your cerebral
> cortex.  Add a tasp and you can live your days out in a closet with a slow
> drip of fluids into your favorite vein.

Why would you need a tasp? Having POV-Ray embedded into your brain 
should be enough, and would have a very similar effect.
Though I'd also need a good C/C++ compiler, broad-band internet access, 
and a *lot* of RAM and storage, as well as a link to a cluster with 
plenty of processing power. ;-)

-- 
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message

In article <3C954547.8B1CD2D6@scifi-fantasy.com>,
 "Timothy R. Cook" <tim### [at] scifi-fantasycom> wrote:

> Some more suggestions for primitives:
> Point
> Turtle (you can draw anything with a turtle ^_^)
> Moebius strip
> Rounded Sphere (as companion to rounded box)

Klein bottle, hypersphere, hypercube, cloud, universe, 
object_i_really_want, texture_i_really_want, scene_i_really_want, 
do_what_i_mean...

-- 
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message

"Sir Charles W. Shults III" wrote:
> 
>     Might as well blow it into a neural chip and implant it in your cerebral
> cortex.  Add a tasp and you can live your days out in a closet with a slow
> drip of fluids into your favorite vein.

That pretty much sums up MY life.

-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

Corey Woodworth wrote in message <3c9523b7@news.povray.org>...
>I know that I'm still a newbie here and I don't want to make any waves, but
>here are a few of my suggestions to add to the next version of pov. I'm
sure
>many of these have probably been brought up before but I just wanted to
>throw in my 2 cents. Pov is a great program but it could be so much
>better!!! With no further ado here is my short list of meager suggestions:

>6. CSG would be a lot easier if we had more primitives to work with. Cubes
>and spheres were great in preschool but the world is a complex place and we
>need complex shapes to describe it. Here are my suggestions for some new
>primitives: Dodecahedron, Buckyball, Leggo brick, Shreck

You're wrong there.  POV-Ray needs fewer primitives, not more.  See my post
"A Modest Proposal" from June 30, 1999.

--
Mark

Post a reply to this message

Personally, I think that simpler is better here.  Most of what I model I
get done very nicely with boxes, cylinders, etc.  More complex shapes are
fine, but you don't often really need them.  POVray should stick with the
K.I.S.S. principle wherever possible.

Cheers!

Chip Shults
My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip

Post a reply to this message

> 1. Everyone knows pov is slow as molasses. Lets just throw out the old
> deprecated C and convert the whole program to ASM. Everyone has Pentiums
now
> anyway.

Thank you for your ideas. Even if we don't like all of them, we can answer
your questions and get a fresh input, as Rune said. There are 2 reasons why
Povray is not written in assembly code:

1)  Pov is meant to be timeless and platform independant. The past has
proven that writing big programs for specific hardware is dangerous because
we don't know what is on the market tomorrow, so the code needs constant
adjustment. Otherwise it needs a full rewrite in just a few years when a new
processor appears. Some commercial developers have the power to handle this,
but Povray is written by many people in their sparetime, over the years. New
coders appear and contribute with something. Some old coders loose interest.
Besides assembly code is harder to understand than C, so new coders will
easily get lost while digging around exsisting code, trying to contribute.

2)  C is not much slower than assembly code these days. The windows version
of POV has been optimised for Pentium / AMD with Intel's compiler.


> 3. I don't know about you guys but this typing crap is hard. It's the new
> millennium and time for a GUI. Lets mimic a proven formula for
productivity
> and intuitiveness. A system that is both easy to use and feature rich. All
> you real CG experts of course know I'm talking about the interface found
in
> Bryce! I mean those arrows are so pretty! How come pov doesn't have pretty
> arrows?

I consider the power of Povray to be the concept of typing graphics, instead
of using the mouse. It's not a limitation but a unique approch to modelling.
It's a dream that comes true for some people, while other people hate it..
Some people don't even give it a chance, and that's a shame.. If you think
it's hard ... well perhaps it's true, but it's not harder than using
graphical modellers.. It's just different.


> 5. Speaking of winamp, isn't about time that pov's UI was skinnable?!

I think that's a good idea.


> 6. CSG would be a lot easier if we had more primitives to work with. Cubes
> and spheres were great in preschool but the world is a complex place and
we
> need complex shapes to describe it. Here are my suggestions for some new
> primitives: Dodecahedron, Buckyball, Leggo brick, Shreck

These shapes can be coded with exsisting primitives and put into a macro.
After this you can easily call them, exactly as if they were "new"
primitives. If you search the Povray newsgroups for Dodecahedron you will
find a cool macro by Uwe Zimmerman. It can make all these kind of 'hedrons
with any number of faces.


> I hope the dev team will take these suggestions to heart when considering
> what features to add to pov4. Thanks for hearing me out!

I'm not one of the developers, but I liked to hear you out! You're right
that Povray can be improved.

Regards,
Hugo

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 17 Mar 2002 18:28:15 -0500, "Corey Woodworth" <cdw### [at] mpinetnet>
wrote:
> I know that I'm still a newbie here

I know that too, but probably I can help you pointing you some interesting
features of latest 3.5.

> 1. Everyone knows pov is slow as molasses. Lets just throw out the old
> deprecated C and convert the whole program to ASM. Everyone has Pentiums now
> anyway.

It is already converted by the team. They even use two different converters:
Visual C (to convert GUI) and INTEL C (to convert engine for processor).

> 2. With the speed afforded to us from improvement number one we can now
> throw out all the old hacks that give us refection and refraction in favor
> for a much better system: Forward ray tracing.

Personally I've always looked forward while tracing. You mean the reason why
it took 335 hours to render 365 lines in my failed shortest code contest entry
is that is is done backward ? Why I didn't stopped this render at begining!!!
Doh, I could save my image.

> 3. I don't know about you guys but this typing crap is hard. It's the new
> millennium and time for a GUI. Lets mimic a proven formula for productivity
> and intuitiveness. A system that is both easy to use and feature rich. All
> you real CG experts of course know I'm talking about the interface found in
> Bryce! I mean those arrows are so pretty! How come pov doesn't have pretty
> arrows?

Newest 3.5 has pretty smart gui. Last time when I used this I achived pretty
nice render of bluish submarine with mines. Name Wizard even choosed name for
this submarine. It was ABYSS or something. I heard there is also teapot wizard
builded in.

> 4. I like listening to music when I'm modeling, but it's such a pain to
> alt-tab back and forth between pov and winamp, why don't we make pov a
> winamp plug-in?

Again I advice you to download 3.5. Check the Editor menu. There is entry
"Play Macro". Everything you need now is to click (as I said in GUI you can't
type now, only click) on "Inser Menu", then click on "Statements" and click on
"Noise generator". Did you hear some noise. It's sound of string.

> 5. Speaking of winamp, isn't about time that pov's UI was skinnable?!

You mean Options->Message Window->Choose Background ?

> 6. CSG would be a lot easier if we had more primitives to work with. Cubes
> and spheres were great in preschool but the world is a complex place and we
> need complex shapes to describe it. Here are my suggestions for some new
> primitives: Dodecahedron, Buckyball, Leggo brick, Shreck.

As I heard the time for 3.5 feature requests is closed but I agree with you
that rendering of Mickey Mouse is difficult. Anyway I reached nice animation
of "Pluto on Mily Way - Daily Adventures" episode. The only problem.. it was
monotonous animation.

> 7. Its so much fun to return to the pov site after the beta expires to get
> the next one! It makes sure I visit regularly and I have the newest version.
> I think that the final version should expire as well, even if there aren't
> any new versions to download.

I don't agree with you. I only suggest to require in specification machines
without network cards. Only artwork cards should be allowed.

> 8. While I commend whoever wrote the tutorials, FAQs, and docs that come
> with pov we all know that nobody reads them. How about we convert them all
> to wav files? If pov becomes a winamp plugin then it would integrate nicely.

Or going further - why gui don't read scripts to the parser ? Perhaps to
avoid: "Parse Error: What did you say ?"

> I hope the dev team will take these suggestions to heart when considering
> what features to add to pov4.

Can I have my own suggestion ? Sell all useless bytes of code to Pixar and
save only important part. It should speed up renderings very much.

> Thanks for hearing me out!

Reciprocally

ABX

BTW: I could write ;-) after every sentence but becouse you couldn't ...

Post a reply to this message

"Timothy R. Cook" wrote:

> >Rounded Sphere (as companion to rounded box)

Now there's an idea whose time has come. I can never seem to get those spheres
round enough. They always end up with sharp edges. I am posting sample code.
What am I doing wrong?

box  {<-1,-1,-1>,<1,1,1> pigment {MyPigment}}

; }

Post a reply to this message

"Dave Dunn" <poi### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:3C95DD52.58BCC79C@aol.com...
>
> Now there's an idea whose time has come. I can never seem to get those spheres
> round enough. They always end up with sharp edges. I am posting sample code.
> What am I doing wrong?
>
> box  {<-1,-1,-1>,<1,1,1> pigment {MyPigment}}
>

A common beginner's mistake. Try:

// decrease step for higher quality
#local Step = 20;
intersection{
  box{0,1 translate -0.5}
  #local M = 0;
  #while(M <= 360)
    #local N = 0;
    #while(N <= 360)
      plane{x,1/2 rotate z*M rotate y*N}
      #local N = N + Step;
    #end
    #local M = M + Step;
  #end
  pigment{Red}
}

Post a reply to this message

In article <3c9592cb@news.povray.org>,
 "Mark Wagner" <mar### [at] gtenet> wrote:

> You're wrong there.  POV-Ray needs fewer primitives, not more.  See my post
> "A Modest Proposal" from June 30, 1999.

Seriously, I think there are a few places it could be simplified. The 
merge shape could be replaced with an option for the union shape, sor 
could be an option for lathes, the various polynomial shapes could be 
put in the poly shape. The prism and polygon primitives could be made 
into one primitive, or prism, sor, and lathe could be combined into a 
single sweep primitive. Smooth triangles could be made part of ordinary 
triangles. Triangles are really just a subset of polygons, but I guess 
they are different enough to deserve their own syntax.

Behind the scenes, the shapes would change intersection calculations to 
fit their parameters, but they appear so similar to the user that they 
could be combined.

-- 
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message

At least someone has sense of humor... ;)

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Mark Wagner <mar### [at] gtenet> wrote:
> POV-Ray needs fewer primitives, not more.

  Which is completely wrong.

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Sir Charles W. Shults III <aic### [at] cflrrcom> wrote:
>     Personally, I think that simpler is better here.  Most of what I model I
> get done very nicely with boxes, cylinders, etc.  More complex shapes are
> fine, but you don't often really need them.  POVray should stick with the
> K.I.S.S. principle wherever possible.

  So let's take off the complex primitives from those who use them just
because *you* don't use them?

  No.
  The fact that you are S.S. doesn't mean everyone else is.

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

It was just a joke. It wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

"Corey Woodworth" <cdw### [at] mpinetnet> wrote in message
news:3c9523b7@news.povray.org...

<snip>

Heh-heh.

Hey, you forgot the smiley... Oh well, I doubt there's any chance anyone will
think you meant it....

Post a reply to this message

Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom> wrote:
> The 
> merge shape could be replaced with an option for the union shape

  So we reduce the number of reserved keywords by 0 and we force the parser
to make a much more complicated task (it starts by creating a union, but
in the middle of parsing it suddenly has to convert it to merge).

>, sor 
> could be an option for lathes,

  Same problem. Number of reserved keywords are reduced by 0 and the parser
has to change the lathe to a sor (which might be a bit complicated).

> The prism and polygon primitives could be made 
> into one primitive, or prism, sor, and lathe could be combined into a 
> single sweep primitive.

  You said that this would simplify the syntax. I don't see how. If all of
them are made into one sweep primitive, we end up getting one reserved
keyword more than currently. I don't see how this makes anything simpler.

> Smooth triangles could be made part of ordinary 
> triangles.

  And how do we differentiate between them?

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

It is interesting that you seem to really take offense to my opinion,
and then resort to attempts at insult.  This is an open forum discussion.  I
am not suggesting that the authors remove anything, but I have learned
something useful about your state of mind.

Cheers!

Chip Shults
My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip

Post a reply to this message

"Christopher James Huff" <chr### [at] maccom> wrote :
>
> do_what_i_mean...

    I would pay large money for a computer that would do what I intended it
to do instead of what I told it to do...

Post a reply to this message

"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3c9605df$1@news.povray.org...
>
>
>     I would pay large money for a computer that would do what I intended it
> to do instead of what I told it to do...
>

... and I would pay even more for a version of Word that did what I told it to
do, instead of what it thinks I intended it to do.

Post a reply to this message

Follow-ups to P.O.T.

"Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote in message
news:3c960740$1@news.povray.org...
> "Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
> news:3c9605df$1@news.povray.org...
> >
> >
> >     I would pay large money for a computer that would do what I intended
it
> > to do instead of what I told it to do...
> >
>
> ... and I would pay even more for a version of Word that did what I told
it to
> do, instead of what it thinks I intended it to do.

    You only -think- you wanted it to do what you told it to do, you really
wanted it to do what it did. It is a fundamental law of nature that what
Bill Gates thinks is what you want. Any imaginations you have that might
dispute this law are simply wrong.

    "MicroSoft: what do we want you to do today?"

    PS: I was able to work every single word of the "Bunnies" song into a
conversation at work last night. I felt inordinately proud of myself even
though no one noticed...

Post a reply to this message

> Hey, you forgot the smiley... Oh well, I doubt there's any chance anyone
will
> think you meant it....

I took his ideas seriously. Some people thinks in a way we don't understand
but it's not necessary to make fun of them and risk hurting them. Maybe he
is a boy. He said some things in a less polite way but I felt he tried to
make a point. A polite respond is always a good idea.

Regards,
Hugo

Post a reply to this message

3 ideas that will change the povray world:

1.
I think we should port povray to Java instead. And then we should start a
render farm that runs on java-enabled phones. So many people with java
enabled phones, you wouldn't believe it!

2.
And additionally we should start thinking about porting povray to commodore
64. I bet many people use their commodore 64 on a daily basis. They'd be
very grateful if you'd do the job.

3.
Force Intel to build a hardware povray version: PnR  (Plug 'n Render)
--
Apache
http://geitenkaas.dns2go.com/experiments/
apa### [at] yahoocom

Post a reply to this message

"Apache" <apa### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:3c96143c$1@news.povray.org...
>
> 3.
> Force Intel to build a hardware povray version: PnR  (Plug 'n Render)
> --
AMD Athlon XP already does that! (XP= eXtraPov, oh yeah baby!)
Maan

Post a reply to this message

In article <3c95fd1b@news.povray.org>, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> 
wrote:

>   So we reduce the number of reserved keywords by 0 and we force the parser
> to make a much more complicated task (it starts by creating a union, but
> in the middle of parsing it suddenly has to convert it to merge).

The goal is not to reduce the number of keywords, where did you get that 
idea? I'm talking about simplifying the syntax.
And it wouldn't be nearly as complex as you imply...actually, it would 
probably be simpler, they already share most of their code. You wouldn't 
want to convert from one type of object to another, that *would* be a 
stupid way to do it.


>   Same problem. Number of reserved keywords are reduced by 0 and the parser
> has to change the lathe to a sor (which might be a bit complicated).

Not complicated at all, and I'm not trying to reduce the number of 
keywords.


>   You said that this would simplify the syntax. I don't see how. If all of
> them are made into one sweep primitive, we end up getting one reserved
> keyword more than currently. I don't see how this makes anything simpler.

Stop counting reserved keywords, it is useless.
One shape rather than three. Easier to maintain, easier to learn, easier 
to extend with additional sweep types.


> > Smooth triangles could be made part of ordinary 
> > triangles.
> 
>   And how do we differentiate between them?

Smooth triangles have normals, obviously.

-- 
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message

In article <3c96143c$1@news.povray.org>,
 "Apache" <apa### [at] yahoocom> wrote:

> 1.
> I think we should port povray to Java instead. And then we should start a
> render farm that runs on java-enabled phones. So many people with java
> enabled phones, you wouldn't believe it!

There is already at least one Java raytracer, you know...


> 3.
> Force Intel to build a hardware povray version: PnR  (Plug 'n Render)

Do you really want it from Intel? I think I'd like Motorola or AMD 
better. Intel would probably end up rendering spheres as boxes or 
something... ;-)

-- 
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message

In article <3c960fd3@news.povray.org>, "Hugo" <hua### [at] post3teledk> 
wrote:

> I took his ideas seriously. Some people thinks in a way we don't understand
> but it's not necessary to make fun of them and risk hurting them.

The parts about ASM and forward raytracing could be blamed on ignorance, 
but the WinAmp plugin, Lego brick and Shreck primitives...well, 
everything else about it gives it away as a joke, obviously enough that 
no smileys are necessary. Laughing at someone's joke isn't making fun of 
them.


> Maybe he is a boy.

This really doesn't look like it was written by some little kid. The 
vocabulary and level of knowledge really doesn't match...how many 
*adults* do you know who know about assembler, refraction, 
dodecahedrons, buckyballs, and forward vs. backwards raytracing, or use 
words like deprecated and intuitiveness?

-- 
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message

Apache wrote:
> 2. And additionally we should start thinking about porting povray
> to commodore 64. I bet many people use their commodore 64 on a
> daily basis. They'd be very grateful if you'd do the job.

You mean there ISN'T a C64 version of POV?!  For shame...

- Tim Cook
http://empyrean.scifi-fantasy.com

Post a reply to this message

"Sir Charles W. Shults III" <aic### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3c960032$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Cheers!
>

CJH is getting it in the ear as well. I think someone got out of bed the
wrong side this a.m.

Post a reply to this message

Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom> wrote:
> The goal is not to reduce the number of keywords, where did you get that 
> idea?

  From this:

> I'm talking about simplifying the syntax.

  More keywords means more complex syntax. Less keywords means simpler syntax.

  Although the number of keywords does not change with the proposed change,
the number of keywords you _need to write_ in order to get a merge increases
by one. This means that when you want a merge, you need to write to keywords
instead of one.
  This only increases complexity.

  Why "union { make_it_merge_instead ... }" would be simpler than just
"merge { ... }" ?

>>   Same problem. Number of reserved keywords are reduced by 0 and the parser
>> has to change the lathe to a sor (which might be a bit complicated).

> Not complicated at all, and I'm not trying to reduce the number of 
> keywords.

  Again, you need to write two keywords when one would suffice. Why writing
*both* keywords, ie "lathe" and "sor" would be simpler than writing just
one, "sor"?

> One shape rather than three. Easier to maintain, easier to learn, easier 
> to extend with additional sweep types.

  One shape with three different options. I don't see how that is easier
to learn or use.

  What you propose is basically the same as forcing the user to put
"object { }" around each primitive he writes. You don't do that, do you? Why?

>> > Smooth triangles could be made part of ordinary 
>> > triangles.
>> 
>>   And how do we differentiate between them?

> Smooth triangles have normals, obviously.

  So the parser needs to read three vectors, and if there are additional
vectors, it has to change the meaning of the three already read vectors.

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Sir Charles W. Shults III <aic### [at] cflrrcom> wrote:
>     It is interesting that you seem to really take offense to my opinion,
> and then resort to attempts at insult.

  It's just that I really don't understand what is the idea behind making
the POV-Ray parser more limited and harder to use. I don't see any advantage
in this.
  I don't understand why some people seem to think that versatility is a
bad thing, when it isn't.
  I use the POV-Ray features rather extensively, and it would deprive me of
many great tools if they were taken away all of a sudden.
  It would be different if the extra features were an overburden (eg. they
would make rendering slower), but they aren't.

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

> > Maybe he is a boy.
>
> This really doesn't look like it was written by some little kid. The
> vocabulary and level of knowledge really doesn't match...how many
> *adults* do you know who know about assembler, refraction,
> dodecahedrons, buckyballs, and forward vs. backwards raytracing, or use
> words like deprecated and intuitiveness?

You have some good points, but on the other hand, there are "outsider"
people. I remember my own childhood. I got hooked on programming when I was
8 years old.. I got more isolated from other children than the majority.. I
learned a lot about computers, but I was still a child.. So I knew a lot of
technical words, but my ideas were not always those of an adult.

And it's possible my "isolation" has made me less skillled to understand
jokes..  :o)

Regards,
Hugo

Post a reply to this message

Tom Melly wrote:

> A common beginner's mistake. Try:
>
> // decrease step for higher quality
> #local Step = 20;
> intersection{
>   box{0,1 translate -0.5}
>   #local M = 0;
>   #while(M <= 360)
>     #local N = 0;
>     #while(N <= 360)
>       plane{x,1/2 rotate z*M rotate y*N}
>       #local N = N + Step;
>     #end
>     #local M = M + Step;
>   #end
>   pigment{Red}
> }

ROTFLMAO!!!

Post a reply to this message

Well, when you can express that clearly and with civility, we will talk.
I have actually learned some things from your older posts that did not
include jabs.  I am not advocating the removal of features, I am expressing
my opinion that complicating things rarely makes them better.

Cheers!

Chip Shults
My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip

Post a reply to this message

"Sir Charles W. Shults III" <aic### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3c9657b2$1@news.povray.org...
>     Well, when you can

    When you learn that you should include some hint of who you are
responding to and what part of their post you are responding to you will
have a chance of being taken seriously.

Post a reply to this message

Bill DeWitt <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3c9658d0@news.povray.org...
>     When you learn that you should include some hint of who you are
> responding to and what part of their post you are responding to you will
> have a chance of being taken seriously.

    You are correct in this, Bill- I removed all attribution, and that is my
mistake.  As for being taken seriously, I would never expect that in a forum
where we are all strings of text, and where people seem to think that they
can act in any manner without some sort of repercussions, simply because
they do not choose to recognize that there are real people behind these
postings.  Warp's attack was not a proper act.

Cheers!

Chip Shults
My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:3c964780@news.povray.org...

<snip>

Hmm, well I don't agree with the idea of removing object identifiers, etc.,
but it's not entirely without precedence.

3.5 has been developed with the principle of leaving many essential jobs to
macros rather than building the support directly into the engine.

Post a reply to this message

Could someone PLEASE port povray to GW-BASIC?

If you want to download that funky dos program on-line:
http://geitenkaas.dns2go.com/experiments/gwbasic.zip

I'll remove the thing in about a week. Download it and port it and you'll
get famous.


--
Apache
http://geitenkaas.dns2go.com/experiments/
apa### [at] yahoocom

Post a reply to this message

In article <3c964780@news.povray.org>, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> 
wrote:

>   It's just that I really don't understand what is the idea behind making
> the POV-Ray parser more limited and harder to use. I don't see any advantage
> in this.

I don't recall anyone seriously recommending this. Well, except for that 
one person who wanted to turn everything into XML...

-- 
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message

In article <3c964694@news.povray.org>, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> 
wrote:

>   More keywords means more complex syntax. Less keywords means simpler syntax.

That is just plain wrong. There are very simple languages with many 
keywords, and extremely complex ones with very few (counting symbols as 
keywords...there are languages that rely on symbols alone).

Have you actually seriously considered my ideas? It doesn't look like it.


>   What you propose is basically the same as forcing the user to put
> "object { }" around each primitive he writes. You don't do that, do you? Why?

It isn't anything like that, I don't see how you could possibly 
interpret it that way. Go back and read my original message again.


> > Smooth triangles have normals, obviously.
> 
>   So the parser needs to read three vectors, and if there are additional
> vectors, it has to change the meaning of the three already read vectors.

If you want to keep the current pattern of "point1, normal1, point2, 
normal2, point3, normal3", then yes. Quite simple really.
Or you could swap things around a bit and use "p1, p2, p3, n1, n2, n3", 
which would be even simpler to parse.

-- 
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message

Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom> wrote:
>>   What you propose is basically the same as forcing the user to put
>> "object { }" around each primitive he writes. You don't do that, do you? Why?

> It isn't anything like that, I don't see how you could possibly 
> interpret it that way. Go back and read my original message again.

  You said that several "sweep" object should be grouped inside the same
object, and the type of the "sweep" should be told separately (if I
understood correctly).
  So you would say something like "sweep { sor ... }" or "sweep { prism ... }".
  This means that you will be grouping several primitives into one block,
just like what 'object' does with primitives. Compare my example to
"object { sor ... }" or "object { prism ... }". There isn't much difference.
  You don't use the 'object' keyword when you don't need to, do you? I'm sure
that you don't use the 'material' or 'texture' keywords unless you need to.
So why force the user to use an additional 'sweep' keyword when there's no
need for that?

> If you want to keep the current pattern of "point1, normal1, point2, 
> normal2, point3, normal3", then yes. Quite simple really.
> Or you could swap things around a bit and use "p1, p2, p3, n1, n2, n3", 
> which would be even simpler to parse.

  Perhaps.

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom> wrote:
> I don't recall anyone seriously recommending this. Well, except for that 
> one person who wanted to turn everything into XML...

  At least it would be more versatile with XML... ;)

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Ditto.
"Hugo" <hua### [at] post3teledk> wrote in message
news:3c964b37$1@news.povray.org...
> > > Maybe he is a boy.
> >
> > This really doesn't look like it was written by some little kid. The
> > vocabulary and level of knowledge really doesn't match...how many
> > *adults* do you know who know about assembler, refraction,
> > dodecahedrons, buckyballs, and forward vs. backwards raytracing, or use
> > words like deprecated and intuitiveness?
>
> You have some good points, but on the other hand, there are "outsider"
> people. I remember my own childhood. I got hooked on programming when I
was
> 8 years old.. I got more isolated from other children than the majority..
I
> learned a lot about computers, but I was still a child.. So I knew a lot
of
> technical words, but my ideas were not always those of an adult.
>
> And it's possible my "isolation" has made me less skillled to understand
> jokes..  :o)
>
> Regards,
> Hugo
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Hugo" <hua### [at] post3teledk> wrote in message
news:3c960fd3@news.povray.org...
> > Hey, you forgot the smiley... Oh well, I doubt there's any chance anyone
> will
> > think you meant it....
>
> I took his ideas seriously. Some people thinks in a way we don't
understand
> but it's not necessary to make fun of them and risk hurting them. Maybe he
> is a boy. He said some things in a less polite way but I felt he tried to
> make a point. A polite respond is always a good idea.

Just to clear things up I did mean this as a joke. On some of the usenet
groups I visit a joke post like this pops up every once in a while without
smiles so I didn't know that that was the norm here. Hope I didn't cause
*too* much trouble :-)

Corey

> Regards,
> Hugo
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Apache" <apa### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:3c9678b0$1@news.povray.org...
> Could someone PLEASE port povray to GW-BASIC?
>
> If you want to download that funky dos program on-line:
> http://geitenkaas.dns2go.com/experiments/gwbasic.zip

10 CLS
20 COOL!
30  I havn't seen that program is a long time.
40 That was the first program I learned to program in.
50 I'll definetly have to download it and play.
60
70 Thanks
80 Corey
90 END

> I'll remove the thing in about a week. Download it and port it and you'll
> get famous.
>
>
> --
> Apache
> http://geitenkaas.dns2go.com/experiments/
> apa### [at] yahoocom
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Heh. "*Too* much trouble"? As in, hmm, maybe like FLAME WAR kind of trouble?
Nah. @@:-)
"Corey Woodworth" <cdw### [at] mpinetnet> wrote in message
news:3c969572@news.povray.org...
>
> "Hugo" <hua### [at] post3teledk> wrote in message
> news:3c960fd3@news.povray.org...
> > > Hey, you forgot the smiley... Oh well, I doubt there's any chance
anyone
> > will
> > > think you meant it....
> >
> > I took his ideas seriously. Some people thinks in a way we don't
> understand
> > but it's not necessary to make fun of them and risk hurting them. Maybe
he
> > is a boy. He said some things in a less polite way but I felt he tried
to
> > make a point. A polite respond is always a good idea.
>
> Just to clear things up I did mean this as a joke. On some of the usenet
> groups I visit a joke post like this pops up every once in a while without
> smiles so I didn't know that that was the norm here. Hope I didn't cause
> *too* much trouble :-)
>
> Corey
>
> > Regards,
> > Hugo
> >
> >
>
>

Post a reply to this message