 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I've run the short code and the fractal competitions, see
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~pbourke/povray/scc3/final/
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~pbourke/povray/povfrac/final/
Are you sick of these competitions or is there still interest?
If the later then how about another in the near future, what about these options?
1. Limited geometry. eg: Create a scene with no more than 10 objects from
the following list: sphere, cylinder, cone, box.
2. Special geometry. eg: Create a scene using only one high level primitive,
but as many of them as you like, for example: a supershape.
3. Create a 3D scene which when rendered from a particular position forms an
image that tiles the plane.
Feel free to suggest others.
--
Paul Bourke
pdb_NOSPAMswin.edu.au
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The third suggestion sounds interesting.
-Chris
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Paul Bourke wrote:
>
> Are you sick of these competitions or is there still interest?
I think they are a great idea!
>
> If the later then how about another in the near future, what about these options?
> 1. Limited geometry. eg: Create a scene with no more than 10 objects from
> the following list: sphere, cylinder, cone, box.
Like it. Texturing/lighting could make all the difference. The sharp
edges might be a limiting factor.
> 2. Special geometry. eg: Create a scene using only one high level primitive,
> but as many of them as you like, for example: a supershape.
Not sure what high level primitive means.
> 3. Create a 3D scene which when rendered from a particular position forms an
> image that tiles the plane.
>
Whoa! Sounds tough. But radical.
> Feel free to suggest others.
The common element between contests is that they are relatively short,
simple, around a single limiting idea, that has more to do with process
than subject?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
jrc### [at] msn com news:4093b963$1@news.povray.org
>> 3. Create a 3D scene which when rendered from a particular position
>> forms an
>> image that tiles the plane.
> Whoa! Sounds tough. But radical.
I dont think this is best idea, it is too hard without little pre-
processing, even AA want work a bit strange around edges
--
http://www.raf256.com/3d/
Rafal Maj 'Raf256', home page - http://www.raf256.com/me/
Computer Graphics
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <pdb_NOSPAM-E7E7D5.15554501052004@news.povray.org>,
Paul Bourke <pdb### [at] swineduau> wrote:
> If the later then how about another in the near future, what about these
> options?
> 1. Limited geometry. eg: Create a scene with no more than 10 objects from
> the following list: sphere, cylinder, cone, box.
> 2. Special geometry. eg: Create a scene using only one high level primitive,
> but as many of them as you like, for example: a supershape.
"High level" meaning no meshes, isosurfaces, blobs, etc?
A combination of 1 and 2 would be interesting. Create a scene with just
one scene-level blob, isosurface, or mesh, and nothing else. Manual
specification of data would be allowed, but no modelers...size/time
limits would encourage algorithmic scene generation. Other shapes would
be allowed for things like the object pattern, but not as actual scene
objects.
A practical use competition...try to come up with a useful tool, the one
voted most useful wins. Maybe have two parallel competitions, one POV
only, the other allowing external programs, Java or C++ for example.
Volumetrics. No directly visible objects, the entire scene must be
composed of shapes only visible through interior attenuation or media.
Maybe refraction, as well...it'd allow some good photon scenes. And
maybe some severely restricted visible objects, such as a ground plane
or finite sky_sphere.
Optics. Mirrors, prisms, lenses, etc. Nice caustic patterns, simulation
or illustration of specific optical effects, and so on.
Radiosity only. Not much description needed...
Environment. Basically, come up with some good surroundings that'd make
a good HDRI map. The focus of the scene would be a collection of objects
showing the environment off through reflection and radiosity, and should
probably be standardized to compare the environments more effectively.
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: <chr### [at] tagpovrayorg>
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
cja### [at] earthlinknet
news:cjameshuff-B1489A.11383901052004@news.povray.org
> Volumetrics. No directly visible objects, the entire scene must be
> composed of shapes only visible through interior attenuation or media.
> Maybe refraction, as well...it'd allow some good photon scenes. And
> maybe some severely restricted visible objects, such as a ground plane
> or finite sky_sphere.
This is interesting. I once done a animation (my first real pov-job)
"matrix" that worked that way. It was suprisingly fast rendering as for
media based scene.
But, I thing that to make something realy interesting users have to have
quite strong computers, and it might be a problem to some users.
On the other hand, it would motivate more usesrs to learn madia, with are
realy very powerfull but meany users dont use them (media can seem quite
hard to learn at first). So, maybe for even next competition?
> Environment. Basically, come up with some good surroundings that'd
> make a good HDRI map. The focus of the scene would be a collection of
> objects showing the environment off through reflection and radiosity,
> and should probably be standardized to compare the environments more
> effectively.
IMHo this idea is *BEST*
- make that way environemts would be very usable (especialy if someone will
make a .hdr output format support, or is it already supported?)
- pov made images could be usefull by other (non-pov) artists, it could be
a good way to promote PovRAY
- no special limitations = meany users will participate
- a good field to create photorealistics images (but not limited to them)
I say it rocks, lets do it Paul :)
Btw - maybe give much longer times? I.e. contest will start in about 1
week, and we woud have a full month to create images. That should allow to
create realy quality images.
--
http://www.raf256.com/3d/
Rafal Maj 'Raf256', home page - http://www.raf256.com/me/
Computer Graphics
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
spa### [at] raf256com news:Xns94DCB4F5F4D3Braf256com@203.29.75.35
> But, I thing that to make something realy interesting users have to
> have quite strong computers, and it might be a problem to some users.
> On the other hand, it would motivate more usesrs to learn madia, with
> are
>
Btw, sorry for my bad english.
--
http://www.raf256.com/3d/
Rafal Maj 'Raf256', home page - http://www.raf256.com/me/
Computer Graphics
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I like the idea of a competition for programs that assist in making pov-ray
scenes. I'm sure a lot of people have knocked together quick utilities
(especially when making animations) that this competition would encourage
them to tidy up and release.
-Chris
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Paul Bourke wrote:
> I've run the short code and the fractal competitions, see
> http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~pbourke/povray/scc3/final/
> http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~pbourke/povray/povfrac/final/
>
> Are you sick of these competitions or is there still interest?
>
> If the later then how about another in the near future, what about these options?
> 1. Limited geometry. eg: Create a scene with no more than 10 objects from
> the following list: sphere, cylinder, cone, box.
> 2. Special geometry. eg: Create a scene using only one high level primitive,
> but as many of them as you like, for example: a supershape.
> 3. Create a 3D scene which when rendered from a particular position forms an
> image that tiles the plane.
>
> Feel free to suggest others.
As already said the last time, i'd not exaggerate the frequency of those
competitions, designing a good scene takes some time so unless you
explicitly want a short time contest some longer time for the
competitions would be good IMO.
The idea to restrict usage of objects to certain types is an interesting
concept, the french 'Defis' contests had one with only boxes:
http://empirium.free.fr/defis/def.php
A contest which only allows one mesh or one isosurface would be
interesting although the latter surely would lead to exorbitant
rendering times (ABX could send his IsoCSG teapot...)
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 01 May. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 01 May 2004 15:55:45 +1000, Paul Bourke
<pdb### [at] swineduau> wrote:
>I've run the short code and the fractal competitions, see
> http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~pbourke/povray/scc3/final/
> http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~pbourke/povray/povfrac/final/
>
>Are you sick of these competitions or is there still interest?
>
Those were fun. :D I'de like more ... but I don't want
you getting burned out by running them!
>If the later then how about another in the near future, what about these options?
>1. Limited geometry. eg: Create a scene with no more than 10 objects from
> the following list: sphere, cylinder, cone, box.
interesting.
>2. Special geometry. eg: Create a scene using only one high level primitive,
> but as many of them as you like, for example: a supershape.
yeah, that could work (goes to read what a "supershape" is in
the docs)
1) Hmm: how about just isosurfaces? I'de have to skip that
one for CPU reasons.
2) just prism objects. That I could do :)
3) just the fractal object. I actually misunderstood
the last contest to be this. :(
>3. Create a 3D scene which when rendered from a particular position forms an
> image that tiles the plane.
>
This last might be too easy to be a contest. I believe there is
an include file out there that will do it for you automatically.
I think Chris colefax wrote it but I'm note sure off the top of
my head.
>Feel free to suggest others.
I have a few. I hope this is not too long:
1) Image re-use. What I mean is, the contest would
specify a picture file (or two?) and the point of
the contest would be to use re-use that picture
in a new render. You could use them as pigments,
you could maybe even UV-map them. Height field
would be an option. using functions to recolor
the pictures would be creative. Since the picture
file would be created/chosen by the contest organizer,
there would be no copyright problems with it.
2) finish / remix a scene. The contest organizer
would create a partial scene in a .pov file. and
put it up on the web. Contestents would download this
theme and edit their copy. Some sort of limit
for the amount of changes should be done but I have
no idea how that would work.
--
to all the companies who wait until a large user base becomes
dependant on their freeware, then shafting said happy campers with
mandatory payment for continued usage. I spit on your grave.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Those were fun. :D I'de like more ... but I don't want
> you getting burned out by running them!
Actually it was only the scc3 that was time consuming, now that I
have the scripts set up things work moderately smoothly with the most
time consuming point being the final www page.
> >2. Special geometry. eg: Create a scene using only one high level primitive,
> > but as many of them as you like, for example: a supershape.
> yeah, that could work (goes to read what a "supershape" is in the docs)
See
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~pbourke/surfaces/supershape3d/
These are an extension to superellipsoids. The idea would be that a macro
or two would be provided that implemented the supershape and no other
primitive would be allowed.
> >3. Create a 3D scene which when rendered from a particular position forms an
> > image that tiles the plane.
> This last might be too easy to be a contest. I believe there is
> an include file out there that will do it for you automatically.
> I think Chris colefax wrote it but I'm note sure off the top of
> my head.
I'd like a pointer to that if it does exist.
--
Paul Bourke
pdb_NOSPAMswin.edu.au
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Volumetrics. No directly visible objects, the entire scene must be
> composed of shapes only visible through interior attenuation or media.
> Maybe refraction, as well...it'd allow some good photon scenes. And
> maybe some severely restricted visible objects, such as a ground plane
> or finite sky_sphere.
> Optics. Mirrors, prisms, lenses, etc. Nice caustic patterns, simulation
> or illustration of specific optical effects, and so on.
> Radiosity only. Not much description needed...
The problem with these for competitions where the source is submitted
is that render times can be scary. I have not insignificant cluster
resources but even that is limited. Personally I like the idea of
keeping these source based, it keep people honest and is a great
learning resource for users. I've had lots of positive comments already
from people looking at how things are done by experts in the fractal
contest.
--
Paul Bourke
pdb_NOSPAMswin.edu.au
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> >> 3. Create a 3D scene which when rendered from a particular position
> >> forms an
> >> image that tiles the plane.
> > Whoa! Sounds tough. But radical.
> I dont think this is best idea, it is too hard without little pre-
> processing, even AA want work a bit strange around edges
I must admit that while this is an elegant idea, I think it is perhaps
too technical for a lot of people....myself included after trying to
make a good example myself. What I really want to see in these contests
is a good number of entries from a wide range of users.
Also, the idea initially was to create a scene that tiles due to its geometric
nature, it turns out quite easy to do with any scene and a couple of
cleverly positioned mirrors.
--
Paul Bourke
pdb_NOSPAMswin.edu.au
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wasn't it Paul Bourke who wrote:
>> >3. Create a 3D scene which when rendered from a particular position forms an
>> > image that tiles the plane.
>> This last might be too easy to be a contest. I believe there is
>> an include file out there that will do it for you automatically.
>> I think Chris colefax wrote it but I'm note sure off the top of
>> my head.
>
>I'd like a pointer to that if it does exist.
>
<http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lakes/1434/tilegen.html>
--
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Paul Bourke wrote:
> I've run the short code and the fractal competitions, see
> http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~pbourke/povray/scc3/final/
> http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~pbourke/povray/povfrac/final/
>
> Are you sick of these competitions or is there still interest?
Carry on with it, the last two contests were great and I'd love to see more -
it's a nice alternative to the IRTC, and as such I don't think that the
frequency is too high.
> If the later then how about another in the near future, what about these options?
> 1. Limited geometry. eg: Create a scene with no more than 10 objects from
> the following list: sphere, cylinder, cone, box.
> 2. Special geometry. eg: Create a scene using only one high level primitive,
> but as many of them as you like, for example: a supershape.
> 3. Create a 3D scene which when rendered from a particular position forms an
> image that tiles the plane.
I like number 3.
> Feel free to suggest others.
How about a short-code-contets for animations? Perhaps a 100 frame loop rendered
in 320x240, with some restrictions on the size of the code, the objects used,
render-time,...
Just an idia.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> Radiosity only. Not much description needed...
I actually like this one.
Defining the rules should be rather easy: Use of light_sources (and
of course #includes) is forbidden.
--
plane{-x+y,-1pigment{bozo color_map{[0rgb x][1rgb x+y]}turbulence 1}}
sphere{0,2pigment{rgbt 1}interior{media{emission 1density{spherical
density_map{[0rgb 0][.5rgb<1,.5>][1rgb 1]}turbulence.9}}}scale
<1,1,3>hollow}text{ttf"timrom""Warp".1,0translate<-1,-.1,2>}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Paul Bourke wrote:
> Also, the idea initially was to create a scene that tiles due to its geometric
> nature, it turns out quite easy to do with any scene and a couple of
> cleverly positioned mirrors.
>
Wow.
Humorously, I had completely misunderstood what you meant anyway.
Imagine a collection of objects floating in space. When viewed from a
particular point their outer edges all seem to exactly coincide in such
a way that the objects combine to exactly fill the viewing plane without
overlapping and without revealing any of the background. Somehow that
is what I thought you meant.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <pdb_NOSPAM-47C71A.14152402052004@news.povray.org>,
Paul Bourke <pdb### [at] swineduau> wrote:
> The problem with these for competitions where the source is submitted
> is that render times can be scary. I have not insignificant cluster
> resources but even that is limited. Personally I like the idea of
> keeping these source based, it keep people honest and is a great
> learning resource for users. I've had lots of positive comments already
> from people looking at how things are done by experts in the fractal
> contest.
True...pretty much all my suggestions had potential to be very slow.
You could take rendered submissions along with the generating source
code, and the voting/verification period could be extended if necessary.
Verification would focus more on those who seem likely to win, making it
less likely for a cheater to win before being found out. Also, you
needn't render the entire image to catch a cheat, you could just render
a couple strips and compare with the submitted version. Community
backlash against a found-out cheater would be severe, and I think that
successfully fooling everyone and winning the contest would be very
unlikely.
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: <chr### [at] tagpovrayorg>
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Paul Bourke <pdb### [at] swineduau> wrote:
> 1. Limited geometry. eg: Create a scene with no more than 10 objects from
> the following list: sphere, cylinder, cone, box.
> 2. Special geometry. eg: Create a scene using only one high level primitive,
> but as many of them as you like, for example: a supershape.
> 3. Create a 3D scene which when rendered from a particular position forms an
> image that tiles the plane.
I'd like the first two.
The third one as was pointed out is 1) too easy (with a downloaded plugin)
and
too technical I believe.
But I like the idea with the tools, I've read here somewhere.
Two more ideas:
..) How about a contest where every contestant has to use a certain tool to
model the main part of his picture?
..) One (more or less simple) photo/image is given and each contestant tries
to reach the reference as close as possible only using PoV.
(The difficulty of this contest will strongly be influenced by the
selected
picture of course.)
ciao
Mischa
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <web.4096259d176e05b8920860d40@news.povray.org>,
"Mischa" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> ..) How about a contest where every contestant has to use a certain tool to
> model the main part of his picture?
Limits the competition to people on the platform that tool runs on. And
the contest would be more about that tool than about POV.
> ..) One (more or less simple) photo/image is given and each contestant tries
> to reach the reference as close as possible only using PoV.
> (The difficulty of this contest will strongly be influenced by the
> selected picture of course.)
I like this idea...
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: <chr### [at] tagpovrayorg>
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4094f199@news.povray.org...
> Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> > Radiosity only. Not much description needed...
>
> I actually like this one.
>
> Defining the rules should be rather easy: Use of light_sources (and
> of course #includes) is forbidden.
>
I like this, in combination of using only one primitive type. say, a scene
of only spheres and radiosity. or boxes, or torus... Of course, you could
approximate a lot of things with clever CSG and boxes. But it would be more
clever to use something like a torus as your primitive type.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 01 May 2004 15:55:45 +1000, Paul Bourke <pdb### [at] swineduau>
wrote:
> I've run the short code and the fractal competitions, see
> http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~pbourke/povray/scc3/final/
> http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~pbourke/povray/povfrac/final/
>
> Are you sick of these competitions or is there still interest?
The only thing I do not like is end within weekend. To me best solution is to
end it on end of Monday so I can bring the entry I made during weekend. I have
less free time during weekend but more powerful CPU to play with. Last time I
spend two weeks gathering elements for fractal scene and finally realised it's
too late because I choosed wrong weekend :-(
> If the later then how about another in the near future, what about these options?
> 1. Limited geometry. eg: Create a scene with no more than 10 objects from
> the following list: sphere, cylinder, cone, box....
.... POV-Logo
> Feel free to suggest others.
4. No programming. Create scene without #declaring, #whiling and #macroing
anything with number of chars per object limited to 80 chars long single
line. So the number of lines makes number of objects and no line is longer
than 80-chars. This should extract power of some features as in shortes sig
contest but without limitation to 4 lines.
5. Unrealistic parameters. Use at least one parameter in SDL in not suggested
way to make a key effect of the scene. Negative lightsource. Negative
radius etc. etc.
6. Playing with rays. Make the scene where image is created on surface after
reflection/refraction. Object in mirrors. Play of the light on glass. Hand
half under, half over surface of water.
I think that in general in your contests short code chould be favored in the
way size is not limited into exact number of chars but rather in relation to
other entries. So when the voting opens I would like to see percentage size in
relation to largest size in the contest round.
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
ABX <abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote:
> 4. No programming. Create scene without #declaring, #whiling and #macroing
> anything
Isn't that the exact opposite of what makes these small competitions
interesting?
Why would it be interesting in *not* being able to use POV-Ray's full
potential in creating scenes?
--
#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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <jjcf90po6amgjjeordn0i7t362t4dti70i@4ax.com>,
ABX <abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote:
> 4. No programming. Create scene without #declaring, #whiling and #macroing
> anything with number of chars per object limited to 80 chars long single
> line. So the number of lines makes number of objects and no line is longer
> than 80-chars. This should extract power of some features as in shortes
> sig contest but without limitation to 4 lines.
All programming. No frame level objects, no background or sky_sphere.
Result is something interesting in a generated file or debug stream.
Render time shouldn't be a problem with this one.
> 5. Unrealistic parameters. Use at least one parameter in SDL in not suggested
> way to make a key effect of the scene. Negative lightsource. Negative
> radius etc. etc.
One good example of this is newdiffract.pov. A completely unrealistic
value of diffraction was used, with very colorful results.
> 6. Playing with rays. Make the scene where image is created on surface after
> reflection/refraction. Object in mirrors. Play of the light on glass. Hand
> half under, half over surface of water.
Similar to the "optics" competition I suggested.
Another idea: illustrate some mathematical concept or theorem. This one
would give the competition some practical benefit...the people judging
might learn something interesting.
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: <chr### [at] tagpovrayorg>
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4 May 2004 11:43:15 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > 4. No programming. Create scene without #declaring, #whiling and #macroing
> > anything
>
> Isn't that the exact opposite of what makes these small competitions
> interesting?
Not to me. The idea of the contest is to do unusual things. Of course I can
write program to output non-programming version of programming one but then it
will result in long source. The idea is to make source as short as possible so
flexibility of primitives/patterns/effects are better focused.
> Why would it be interesting in *not* being able to use POV-Ray's full
> potential in creating scenes?
That's the question you can ask about all the subjects. Why to force to write
short code if it's more readable in long form? Why to use only radiosity to
make a scene if similar effect can be rendered in short time using less
agresive radiosity + 2 light sources?
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
in news:pdb_NOSPAM-E7E7D5.15554501052004@news.povray.org Paul Bourke
wrote:
> Feel free to suggest others.
>
How about the oldest subject in raytracing? Reflective sphere over
checkered plane.
Ingo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 04 May 2004 11:51:58 -0400, Christopher James Huff
<cja### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
>All programming. No frame level objects, no background or sky_sphere.
>Result is something interesting in a generated file or debug stream.
>Render time shouldn't be a problem with this one.
>
Neat! I like! Hmm: write a uuencoded audio file? :D :D
--
to all the companies who wait until a large user base becomes
dependant on their freeware, then shafting said happy campers with
mandatory payment for continued usage. I spit on your grave.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mischa wrote:
> Paul Bourke <pdb### [at] swineduau> wrote:
>
>>1. Limited geometry. eg: Create a scene with no more than 10 objects from
>> the following list: sphere, cylinder, cone, box.
All my shortest code contests were made that way - a forest made of
three planes and a bunch of cylinders; a school of fish made with a
lathe object and some disks, etc.
> But I like the idea with the tools, I've read here somewhere.
I've been working on a height field editor - would that count?
> ..) One (more or less simple) photo/image is given and each contestant tries
> to reach the reference as close as possible only using PoV.
> (The difficulty of this contest will strongly be influenced by the
> selected
> picture of course.)
An architectural object of some sort would be neat (but may be very
complex - like the U.S. capital building.) But you'd want something
like that which would allow POV to show it's stuff.
Another suggestion I liked was an animation contest. You could limit it
by size of POV source, or maybe limit what was being animated - the
contest creator would create a basic scene - like a fountain, and the
contestants would supply a macro that generates the water from the pipe
and in the basin.
I missed the 3rd shortest code contest both because I wasn't online very
much at the time, and thought it was limitted to 100 characters - I have
enough trouble with 250! Maybe next time....
Just had another thought - there was a coding contest I heard about once
- the goal was to create a program the produced an animated fire.
Perhaps something could be made from that.
Tom A.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <4099245c.8811668@localhost>,
pov### [at] bestwebnetalmost (povray) wrote:
> >All programming. No frame level objects, no background or sky_sphere.
> >Result is something interesting in a generated file or debug stream.
> >Render time shouldn't be a problem with this one.
>
> Neat! I like! Hmm: write a uuencoded audio file? :D :D
Or an ASCII PPM file...
Hmm. Would it be considered sacrilege to write a scanline renderer in
POV-Script?
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: <chr### [at] tagpovrayorg>
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
