 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Here are links to some old but useful include files for POV-ray. I wanted to
call attention to them because at least the ones by Chris Colefax are difficult
to find, as all of his old Geocities web links no longer work (including the
links at POV-ray.org.) My advice is to get them now and archive them, for later
use or study; who knows how much longer they'll be around. Some may be really
outdated, but the code is probably worth a look anyway.
I've worked with only a few of these, but my favorite is Rune's ILLUSION.inc. In
effect, it allows 'camera projection' for creating 3-D matte paintings-- a type
of image projection onto scene objects that POV-Ray doesn't yet have.
Chris Colefax's include files and macros.
http://www.oocities.org/ccolefax/index.html
GALAXY
TILE GENERATOR
COMPRESSED MESH macro
CITY GENERATOR
LIQUID SPRAY
OBJECT EXPLODER
BRUSHED METAL
LENS EFFECTS
OBJECT BENDER
COILS
SPIDERWEB
etc.
Rune's include files and macros
http://runevision.com/3d/
PARTICLE SYSTEM
ELECTRICITY
INVERSE KINEMATICS for necks/tentacles
ILLUSION
etc.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> Here are links to some old but useful include files for POV-ray. I wanted to
> call attention to them because at least the ones by Chris Colefax are difficult
> to find, as all of his old Geocities web links no longer work (including the
> links at POV-ray.org.) My advice is to get them now and archive them, for later
> use or study; who knows how much longer they'll be around. Some may be really
> outdated, but the code is probably worth a look anyway.
So very true - I found a whole directory of the Colefax macros a while back, and
posted a link to them as well, for exactly the same reason. Thanks for the
additional link/location.
:)
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/message/%3Cweb.57aa03c768edbca0b488d9aa0%40news.povray.org%3E/#%3Cweb.57a
a03c768edbca0b488d9aa0%40news.povray.org%3E
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thanks for that. (I must have missed your post at the time-- or I didn't make a
note of it, like I should have!)
Strangely, I didn't see the link you mentioned, when I was searching this week--
neither online nor within POV-Ray's own 'search'. In any case, we now have TWO
active locations for Chris's include files! ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-5-2017 19:29, Kenneth wrote:
> Thanks for that. (I must have missed your post at the time-- or I didn't make a
> note of it, like I should have!)
>
> Strangely, I didn't see the link you mentioned, when I was searching this week--
> neither online nor within POV-Ray's own 'search'. In any case, we now have TWO
> active locations for Chris's include files! ;-)
>
>
And there always is the Wayback Machine when all other things fail:
https://archive.org/web/
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/10/2017 7:51 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 8-5-2017 19:29, Kenneth wrote:
>> Thanks for that. (I must have missed your post at the time-- or I
>> didn't make a
>> note of it, like I should have!)
>>
>> Strangely, I didn't see the link you mentioned, when I was searching
>> this week--
>> neither online nor within POV-Ray's own 'search'. In any case, we now
>> have TWO
>> active locations for Chris's include files! ;-)
>>
>>
>
> And there always is the Wayback Machine when all other things fail:
> https://archive.org/web/
>
There is more to it than that. They are trying to digitise everything. :-)
https://archive.org/
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10-5-2017 9:36, Stephen wrote:
> On 5/10/2017 7:51 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 8-5-2017 19:29, Kenneth wrote:
>>> Thanks for that. (I must have missed your post at the time-- or I
>>> didn't make a
>>> note of it, like I should have!)
>>>
>>> Strangely, I didn't see the link you mentioned, when I was searching
>>> this week--
>>> neither online nor within POV-Ray's own 'search'. In any case, we now
>>> have TWO
>>> active locations for Chris's include files! ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And there always is the Wayback Machine when all other things fail:
>> https://archive.org/web/
>>
>
> There is more to it than that. They are trying to digitise everything. :-)
>
> https://archive.org/
>
Thanks indeed! I had not seen that.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/10/2017 11:55 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> And there always is the Wayback Machine when all other things fail:
>>> https://archive.org/web/
>>>
>>
>> There is more to it than that. They are trying to digitise everything.
>> :-)
>>
>> https://archive.org/
>>
>
> Thanks indeed! I had not seen that.
I've used it when my wife wanted to read something obscure by Mrs Henry
Wood or the like. It is surprising what you can find.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10-5-2017 13:22, Stephen wrote:
> On 5/10/2017 11:55 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>> And there always is the Wayback Machine when all other things fail:
>>>> https://archive.org/web/
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is more to it than that. They are trying to digitise everything.
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> https://archive.org/
>>>
>>
>> Thanks indeed! I had not seen that.
>
>
> I've used it when my wife wanted to read something obscure by Mrs Henry
> Wood or the like. It is surprising what you can find.
>
It partly covers the Project Gutenberg, as far as books are concerned it
seems: https://www.gutenberg.org/
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/10/2017 12:32 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>
>
> It partly covers the Project Gutenberg, as far as books are concerned it
> seems: https://www.gutenberg.org/
>
The Gutenberg is better for quality. They are OCR'd and edited. A lot of
the books on https://archive.org/ are just scanned.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I've worked with only a few of these, but my favorite is Rune's ILLUSION.inc. In
> effect, it allows 'camera projection' for creating 3-D matte paintings-- a type
> of image projection onto scene objects that POV-Ray doesn't yet have.
>
What I should have said is, "...a type of image projection onto scene objects
that POV-Ray doesn't yet have-- that is, without writing a matrix." Runes's
magical image-mapping matrix is really the key to how ILLUSION.inc works.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
