I've thought about it for a while, and I've figured what I think is the 
best strategy for further development of POV:

First, like the POV team had anounced, POV 3.5 will be a 3.1 with many 
new patches built-in as an official version. This would make it possible 
for us to use these patches without worrying if there would ever be any 
program that support them. I would love to see, for example, UVPOV part 
of the official pov-ray.

Then comes POV 4.0, which is really a new version. I think it is a good 
idea to build it in a very object oriented fashion. Maybe its good to 
keep it backward compatible, but the suggestion in the previous message 
concerning this matter is quite good. It would allow easy implementation 
of Inverse Kinematics and complex animations. It would be a whole new 
POV.

Post a reply to this message

> First, like the POV team had anounced, POV 3.5 will be a 3.1 with many
> new patches built-in as an official version. This would make it possible
> for us to use these patches without worrying if there would ever be any
> program that support them. I would love to see, for example, UVPOV part
> of the official pov-ray.

This, too, is my dream. I can't wait to see the day when I can throw my
Superpatch away, and free up a few megs. =) (God bless Ron Parker!)

> Then comes POV 4.0, which is really a new version. I think it is a good
> idea to build it in a very object oriented fashion. Maybe its good to
> keep it backward compatible, but the suggestion in the previous message
> concerning this matter is quite good. It would allow easy implementation
> of Inverse Kinematics and complex animations. It would be a whole new
> POV.

FK and IK and an addition of most of the things we don't have when compared
to the $$$ packages would be nice. Of course, if they can toss in a little
speed increase that would be cool too. I just don't think that OO is the way
to go. Things are fine as they are. I imagine 4.0 as a new interface, more
speed, and more stuff available kinda thing. I dream of it including the
things we would like to have, like FK and IK, and collision detection and
whatnot, but not as a change in the language, which I find quite good. I
figure a rewrite is too drastic. This should be saved only as a last resort,
for version 5.0 or something. The closer we are to ASM, the better, which is
why I believe it should be sped up with it. I'm probably just writing too
much now.

One idea I have is an extension project to POV, hopefully for 4.0. My idea
is to add "mini-shape-studios" (MSS?) which would allow for modelling to be
included in the official POV. Imagine a lathe-sor-prism shape-studio: you
could pop up a little grid, and click on the points to make a spline for a
lathe, or a prism. The ability to visualize these concepts would create
better images. In this case, all it is is lines, so it should be simple.
When the user is done, he clicks a 'create' button and it writes to the new,
official Ken-style of scripting. Another example would be a sphere
shape-studio: where you could scale the sphere just the way you want it.
This would also be simple. Just create 3 views of circles from X, Y, or Z.
As you can imagine, these would be little windows, and not clutter all of
the pov space, and, of course, one would have the option to close these
mini-studios, which would immediately free up the memory they're eating up.
This is just another one of those off-my-head ideas. Please comment.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 13 Apr 1999 10:24:28 -0400, Anthony Bennett wrote:
>One idea I have is an extension project to POV, hopefully for 4.0. My idea
>is to add "mini-shape-studios" (MSS?) which would allow for modelling to be
>included in the official POV. Imagine a lathe-sor-prism shape-studio: you
>could pop up a little grid, and click on the points to make a spline for a
>lathe, or a prism. The ability to visualize these concepts would create
>better images. In this case, all it is is lines, so it should be simple.
>When the user is done, he clicks a 'create' button and it writes to the new,
>official Ken-style of scripting. 

I've thought about these, too.  I tend to call them "wizards", but I like
"mini-modeler" too.  The "studio" thing just doesn't do it for me.

If GUI-Extensions could write to the current editor window, you'd be most 
of the way there as far as the POV end is concerned.  A nice addition would 
be the ability to read the current editor window as well as know the cursor 
position.  Then you could encode the parameters of the object in a comment 
in a machine-readable fashion, so you could click inside one of your mini-
modeler objects, select the appropriate menu item, and bring it back up 
for further editing.  If this were an official patch, you could even syntax-
highlight the stuff between the cryptic comments like MSVC does, to mark it
as wizard-generated code.  A creative coder could even add OpenGL support to 
a mini-modeler, so you could preview your lathe from all different angles.

Post a reply to this message

Anthony Bennett <ben### [at] panamaphoenixnet> writes:

> One idea I have is an extension project to POV, hopefully for 4.0. My idea
> is to add "mini-shape-studios" (MSS?) which would allow for modelling to be
> included in the official POV.

What?  Modelling?  What's that?  Nothing to do with a raytracer.
POV-Ray is a raytracer.  An engine.  Not a modeller.  Not a car.  I
don't want to have a car, I want to have an engine that I can use in a
boat or a plane or a bike or whatever.  I don't want an integrated
modeller, I want a raytracing engine.

  Besides, how can you think of a portable modeller?  Unless of course
you do it in Perl/Tk or Python/Tk or Tcl/Tk, your modeller will be
platform-dependent.  Which is *bad*.

Roland.
-- 
Roland Mas

Autumn leaves are brown...  And the sky is gray...
  -- California Dreaming (The Mamas and the Papas)

Post a reply to this message

Anthony Bennett wrote in message <3713539C.F22AAB8E@panama.phoenix.net>...
>
>This, too, is my dream. I can't wait to see the day when I can throw my
>Superpatch away, and free up a few megs. =) (God bless Ron Parker!)
>

I hope and pray this day will not come, and that Ron (or somebody) will
continue the effort of combining all the unofficial patches into one
"superpatch". This will be no less useful after 3.5

>
>FK and IK and an addition of most of the things we don't have when compared
>to the $$$ packages would be nice. Of course, if they can toss in a little
>speed increase that would be cool too. I just don't think that OO is the
way
>to go. Things are fine as they are. I imagine 4.0 as a new interface, more
>speed, and more stuff available kinda thing. I dream of it including the
>things we would like to have, like FK and IK, and collision detection and
>whatnot, but not as a change in the language, which I find quite good. I

IK is already available in Moray (which is hardly a $$$ package); I suppose
it could also be done with the current #macros, given time and expertise.
Not that I'm opposed to the idea, of course. But there are other things that
should have a higher priority.

I have nothing against OO as such, _provided_ that the language maintains
backward-compatibility. Not because I wouldn't be willing to learn the new
language. But too much previous work would go to waste.

Your mini-studios concept is certainly interesting and novel. But it would
pretty much be a duplicated effort. There are several free/cheap modellers
for POV, which can do this and much more. If only any of them could read POV
files, I'd be a happy puppy.

Something I would really like is the ability to access POV's internal
functions. Like trace, min_extent and max_extent in the Superpatch
(incredibly useful functions, IMO), but also reflection, refraction, pigment
or any other texture property at an intersection point, light intensity at a
given point in space, etc. etc. These are, of course, just of-the-wall
examples, but you can see what I'm referring to.
I would, of course, also applaude the addition of collision detection.

Margus

Post a reply to this message

> I've thought about these, too.  I tend to call them "wizards", but I like
> "mini-modeler" too.  The "studio" thing just doesn't do it for me.

You're right. Mini-modeller it is. =)

> If GUI-Extensions could write to the current editor window, you'd be most
> of the way there as far as the POV end is concerned.  A nice addition would
> be the ability to read the current editor window as well as know the cursor
> position.  Then you could encode the parameters of the object in a comment
> in a machine-readable fashion, so you could click inside one of your mini-
> modeler objects, select the appropriate menu item, and bring it back up
> for further editing.  If this were an official patch, you could even syntax-
> highlight the stuff between the cryptic comments like MSVC does, to mark it
> as wizard-generated code.  A creative coder could even add OpenGL support to
> a mini-modeler, so you could preview your lathe from all different angles.

OpenGL? I think just simple lines and circles would be nice for a quick
vizualization of the object. The think that I don't like is that some of our
other friends (other OSes) who don't have a gui would not like being left out. I
don't want that, but I want these features so bad, I can almost* say I don't
care.

* Note: by employing the word "almost", the author of the above message indicates
that a little voice inside him screams to him not to care, not that this is what
he desires for you, the community. This note is sponsored in part by Pepsi. (~)

Post a reply to this message

> IK is already available in Moray (which is hardly a $$$ package).

$$$ indicates money in any range whatsoever, be it $1 or $1,000,000.

> Your mini-studios concept is certainly interesting and novel. But it would
> pretty much be a duplicated effort. There are several free/cheap modellers
> for POV, which can do this and much more. If only any of them could read POV
> files, I'd be a happy puppy.

Mr. Parker suggested the term 'mini-modellers'. I like it more. I don't think it
would be a duplicated effort, simply a necessary combination of the whole. Why
have half a dozen little programs doing one primitive each, when you can open a
mini-modeller from within POV and just make an object, look at it, and 'create'
it as povscript? This would make me happier.

> Something I would really like is the ability to access POV's internal
> functions. Like trace, min_extent and max_extent in the Superpatch
> (incredibly useful functions, IMO), but also reflection, refraction, pigment
> or any other texture property at an intersection point, light intensity at a
> given point in space, etc. etc. These are, of course, just of-the-wall
> examples, but you can see what I'm referring to.
> I would, of course, also applaude the addition of collision detection.

Yup, all those would be nice to have, but... light intensity? Don't even bother
explaining, I'm sure somebody will find some cool use for it. =)

Post a reply to this message

Margus wrote

> Something I would really like is the ability to access POV's internal
> functions. Like trace, min_extent and max_extent in the Superpatch
> (incredibly useful functions, IMO), but also reflection, refraction, pigment
> or any other texture property at an intersection point, light intensity at a
> given point in space, etc. etc.

.. yes,yes.. and little things like normal of a  surface from the camera or
light, so that you culd then make the object's colour a function of the normal
at any point of the surface .... etc.
just like polyray did.... (does anyone remember....?)
benp

Post a reply to this message

> Your mini-studios concept is certainly interesting and novel. But it would
> pretty much be a duplicated effort. There are several free/cheap modellers
> for POV, which can do this and much more. If only any of them could read
POV
> files, I'd be a happy puppy.
>

Ok. I keep posting this URL, maybe someone will make something out of it.
There IS a program that DOES parse pov-ray syntax. In fact, it's a C++
library for reading versions 1 - 3 pov syntax, and creates a structure of
C++ objects....


It can be found here:
http://www9.informatik.uni-erlangen.de/~cnvogelg/pov2rib/index.html

Please, someone take this, and make a converter!

Post a reply to this message

> I've thought about these, too.  I tend to call them "wizards", but I like
> "mini-modeler" too.  The "studio" thing just doesn't do it for me.

I found something exactly like what I was talking about, but it is an external
program to POV, and not built-in like it should be. Mr. Tyler found the link.

http://kolos.math.uni.lodz.pl/~garusk/eng/povadds.htm
See the Shaper program. That's the one I'm talking about.

Post a reply to this message