Hi folks,

I still wonder why L-Systems or turtle graphics never really made it to be
intergrated in Povray.

Paolo Gibellini created an awsome macro to do so, although his macro is
restricted to 2D. And I guess he is waiting for someone to take it to 3D.

I saw a bunch of images from Colin Fleming based on Lparser by Laurens Lapre - a
MS DOS program from times long gone by - but still interesting.

But I guess most of the guys here are playing around with fancy things like mesh
camera, coding macros which no ordinary user can follow (Voronoi).

Making Povray more sophisticated and specialised does not mean make it better.
Only making it better for a small group of specialists not for public.

- Oswald

Post a reply to this message

"Droj" <803### [at] drojde> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I still wonder why L-Systems or turtle graphics never really made it to be
> intergrated in Povray.

You can wonder about a lot of things along with the rest of us, but the short
answer is that it's an open-source ray-tracer, and what winds up in the source
code is the result of the people who do the coding and work behind the scenes on
the Dev Team.

I would guess that most of that is focused on doing the actual ray-tracing, and
less about adding new types of things to ray-trace.

> Paolo Gibellini created an awsome macro to do so, although his macro is
> restricted to 2D. And I guess he is waiting for someone to take it to 3D.
>
> I saw a bunch of images from Colin Fleming based on Lparser by Laurens Lapre - a
> MS DOS program from times long gone by - but still interesting.

Well - that's how we are left to do things that aren't integrated into the
source code - macros or straight scene or include files.

> But I guess most of the guys here are playing around with fancy things like mesh
> camera, coding macros which no ordinary user can follow (Voronoi).

I suppose mesh camera seems fancy - like many things - at first.  The Voronoi
thing, at it's root - is nothing very fancy at all.   Trying to get it to be a
full-color, infinite, tileable pattern, implemented as a function - was more
working out a series of inspirations.

> Making Povray more sophisticated and specialised does not mean make it better.
> Only making it better for a small group of specialists not for public.

We haven't changed POV-Ray one iota.   We're _using_ it.

 - BE

Post a reply to this message

"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> "Droj" <803### [at] drojde> wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I still wonder why L-Systems or turtle graphics never really made it to be
> > intergrated in Povray.
>
> You can wonder about a lot of things along with the rest of us, but the short
> answer is that it's an open-source ray-tracer, and what winds up in the source
> code is the result of the people who do the coding and work behind the scenes on
> the Dev Team.
>
> I would guess that most of that is focused on doing the actual ray-tracing, and
> less about adding new types of things to ray-trace.
>
> > Paolo Gibellini created an awsome macro to do so, although his macro is
> > restricted to 2D. And I guess he is waiting for someone to take it to 3D.
> >
> > I saw a bunch of images from Colin Fleming based on Lparser by Laurens Lapre - a
> > MS DOS program from times long gone by - but still interesting.
>
> Well - that's how we are left to do things that aren't integrated into the
> source code - macros or straight scene or include files.
>
> > But I guess most of the guys here are playing around with fancy things like mesh
> > camera, coding macros which no ordinary user can follow (Voronoi).
>
> I suppose mesh camera seems fancy - like many things - at first.  The Voronoi
> thing, at it's root - is nothing very fancy at all.   Trying to get it to be a
> full-color, infinite, tileable pattern, implemented as a function - was more
> working out a series of inspirations.
>
> > Making Povray more sophisticated and specialised does not mean make it better.
> > Only making it better for a small group of specialists not for public.
>
> We haven't changed POV-Ray one iota.   We're _using_ it.
>
>  - BE

Thanks BE for enlightening me.

Sometimes my stubborn brain is running wild.

I have a high esteem for all of you who are developing Povray further.

So take my apologies if I stepped on someones toe. I did not mean to offend
anybody.

regards - Oswald

Post a reply to this message

"Droj" <803### [at] drojde> wrote:

> Thanks BE for enlightening me.
>
> Sometimes my stubborn brain is running wild.

Hey - we all get these bouts of frustration that are usually linked to some
inability to make some scene element or perform some necessary pre-rendering
thing that most all regular computer languages have - either inbuilt, or in a
library.

The thing is - all of that stuff is usually the product of some massive team of
paid professional computer developers who take orders from above.

So, there's money, all the time those people are working on that stuff 100% of
their work day ( ;) ), the education and expertise - and usually management and
a customer base that drives expectations and productivity.

At the present time, we have virtually none of that.

So some of us do the next best thing and try to implement features that we'd
like to see in macros/SDL, so that perhaps in the future some developer will
have the code ready to go, and just have to translate it into C, C++, or
whatever language POV-Ray 4.0 might end up being.

> I have a high esteem for all of you who are developing Povray further.
>
> So take my apologies if I stepped on someones toe. I did not mean to offend
> anybody.

We've all done a fair bit of shoving on our own.   No harm, no foul.
If there's any code or explanations you'd like for any of the myriad projects
that I've worked on, just let me know.

Some of the things I've worked on have taken me YEARS - because I've needed to
happen across some article or video that explains it in a way that I can grasp
the underlying concept - or more importantly, its implementation.

Bezier curves was a big one, but Voronoi (and Delaunay) is something that I've
wanted to have a user-controlled version of for a very, VERY long time.  I
finally watched a video where the code was minimal enough that I was able to
copy it, and then "see through" all of the extraneous crap and have the critical
"AHA!!!!!" moment where the dirt simple concept AND implementation were suddenly
clear.   And BOY did I feel stoopid.

Now, once I understood the basic practical implementation, the inevitable
exploration and expansion of the code to address certain issues and make it a
much more production-type code that was amenable to adding to the source-code as
an inbuilt-pattern is just something that I was doing to really solidify the
idea in my head, and find ways to circumvent the limitations of the initial
proof-of-concept.

We have all delved into projects where someone else's code just looks like some
big pile of WTF, or worse, sat in front of the Editor unable to make the scene
elements that we want, because we just don't have the necessary inbuilt tools,
programming experience, or mathematical foundations to even begin making the
things that we want.

Go back to 2102/2013 when I really started to heavily use POV-Ray for
everything, and you'll all the dumb mistakes, misunderstandings, ignorance,
frustration, complaining, whining, and hacktastic piles of abysmal code that I
tried my best to pump out on a tiny little laptop that resembled a cheap
Chromebook.

Gotta start somewhere.  Gotta pick something, and doggedly pursue it - finding
every link, book, article, video, live-coding session, posting on forums where
people are super math/computer snobs and condescending Ay Wholes, emailing
professors and graduate students about their work or postings, .... until one
day, 2+ years later, you finally figure it out and somehow get it to work.

I was never taught matrices, linear algebra, statistics, projective geometry, or
any of the topics that I've shoved my nose into.   I had 15 min of differential
equations when I took physical chemistry back in .... 1993??  So after 30 years,
I hit that wall of ignorance/forgetfulness, and that was a 1-year delay until I
got the motivation to relearn partial second derivatives.

So, there's a lot that goes into just 1 "feature" to get a basic code base, and
then it has to be translated into "production code" that has all sorts of sanity
checks, and plays well with the different math solvers and layers of textures
and finishes, and ... and.... and ....


..... and we have no one to do that right now.

So a coding we will go, until we find someone to write source code, or one of us
learns enough C or C++ to start writing the source code - probably in an
unofficial fork.   Like hgPOVRay38 or povr.  MegaPOV and UberPOV.  Etc.

- BE

Post a reply to this message

"Droj" <803### [at] drojde> wrote:

> Thanks BE for enlightening me.
>
> Sometimes my stubborn brain is running wild.

Hey - we all get these bouts of frustration that are usually linked to some
inability to make some scene element or perform some necessary pre-rendering
thing that most all regular computer languages have - either inbuilt, or in a
library.

The thing is - all of that stuff is usually the product of some massive team of
paid professional computer developers who take orders from above.

So, there's money, all the time those people are working on that stuff 100% of
their work day ( ;) ), the education and expertise - and usually management and
a customer base that drives expectations and productivity.

At the present time, we have virtually none of that.

So some of us do the next best thing and try to implement features that we'd
like to see in macros/SDL, so that perhaps in the future some developer will
have the code ready to go, and just have to translate it into C, C++, or
whatever language POV-Ray 4.0 might end up being.

> I have a high esteem for all of you who are developing Povray further.
>
> So take my apologies if I stepped on someones toe. I did not mean to offend
> anybody.

We've all done a fair bit of shoving on our own.   No harm, no foul.
If there's any code or explanations you'd like for any of the myriad projects
that I've worked on, just let me know.

Some of the things I've worked on have taken me YEARS - because I've needed to
happen across some article or video that explains it in a way that I can grasp
the underlying concept - or more importantly, its implementation.

Bezier curves was a big one, but Voronoi (and Delaunay) is something that I've
wanted to have a user-controlled version of for a very, VERY long time.  I
finally watched a video where the code was minimal enough that I was able to
copy it, and then "see through" all of the extraneous crap and have the critical
"AHA!!!!!" moment where the dirt simple concept AND implementation were suddenly
clear.   And BOY did I feel stoopid.

Now, once I understood the basic practical implementation, the inevitable
exploration and expansion of the code to address certain issues and make it a
much more production-type code that was amenable to adding to the source-code as
an inbuilt-pattern is just something that I was doing to really solidify the
idea in my head, and find ways to circumvent the limitations of the initial
proof-of-concept.

We have all delved into projects where someone else's code just looks like some
big pile of WTF, or worse, sat in front of the Editor unable to make the scene
elements that we want, because we just don't have the necessary inbuilt tools,
programming experience, or mathematical foundations to even begin making the
things that we want.

Go back to 2102/2013 when I really started to heavily use POV-Ray for
everything, and you'll all the dumb mistakes, misunderstandings, ignorance,
frustration, complaining, whining, and hacktastic piles of abysmal code that I
tried my best to pump out on a tiny little laptop that resembled a cheap
Chromebook.

Gotta start somewhere.  Gotta pick something, and doggedly pursue it - finding
every link, book, article, video, live-coding session, posting on forums where
people are super math/computer snobs and condescending Ay Wholes, emailing
professors and graduate students about their work or postings, .... until one
day, 2+ years later, you finally figure it out and somehow get it to work.

I was never taught matrices, linear algebra, statistics, projective geometry, or
any of the topics that I've shoved my nose into.   I had 15 min of differential
equations when I took physical chemistry back in .... 1993??  So after 30 years,
I hit that wall of ignorance/forgetfulness, and that was a 1-year delay until I
got the motivation to relearn partial second derivatives.

So, there's a lot that goes into just 1 "feature" to get a basic code base, and
then it has to be translated into "production code" that has all sorts of sanity
checks, and plays well with the different math solvers and layers of textures
and finishes, and ... and.... and ....


..... and we have no one to do that right now.

So a coding we will go, until we find someone to write source code, or one of us
learns enough C or C++ to start writing the source code - probably in an
unofficial fork.   Like hgPOVRay38 or povr.  MegaPOV and UberPOV.  Etc.


- BE

Post a reply to this message

"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> "Droj" <803### [at] drojde> wrote:
>
> > Thanks BE for enlightening me.
> >
> > Sometimes my stubborn brain is running wild.
>
> Hey - we all get these bouts of frustration that are usually linked to some
> inability to make some scene element or perform some necessary pre-rendering
> thing that most all regular computer languages have - either inbuilt, or in a
> library.
>
> The thing is - all of that stuff is usually the product of some massive team of
> paid professional computer developers who take orders from above.
>
> So, there's money, all the time those people are working on that stuff 100% of
> their work day ( ;) ), the education and expertise - and usually management and
> a customer base that drives expectations and productivity.
>
> At the present time, we have virtually none of that.
>
> So some of us do the next best thing and try to implement features that we'd
> like to see in macros/SDL, so that perhaps in the future some developer will
> have the code ready to go, and just have to translate it into C, C++, or
> whatever language POV-Ray 4.0 might end up being.
>
> > I have a high esteem for all of you who are developing Povray further.
> >
> > So take my apologies if I stepped on someones toe. I did not mean to offend
> > anybody.
>
> We've all done a fair bit of shoving on our own.   No harm, no foul.
> If there's any code or explanations you'd like for any of the myriad projects
> that I've worked on, just let me know.
>
> Some of the things I've worked on have taken me YEARS - because I've needed to
> happen across some article or video that explains it in a way that I can grasp
> the underlying concept - or more importantly, its implementation.
>
> Bezier curves was a big one, but Voronoi (and Delaunay) is something that I've
> wanted to have a user-controlled version of for a very, VERY long time.  I
> finally watched a video where the code was minimal enough that I was able to
> copy it, and then "see through" all of the extraneous crap and have the critical
> "AHA!!!!!" moment where the dirt simple concept AND implementation were suddenly
> clear.   And BOY did I feel stoopid.
>
> Now, once I understood the basic practical implementation, the inevitable
> exploration and expansion of the code to address certain issues and make it a
> much more production-type code that was amenable to adding to the source-code as
> an inbuilt-pattern is just something that I was doing to really solidify the
> idea in my head, and find ways to circumvent the limitations of the initial
> proof-of-concept.
>
> We have all delved into projects where someone else's code just looks like some
> big pile of WTF, or worse, sat in front of the Editor unable to make the scene
> elements that we want, because we just don't have the necessary inbuilt tools,
> programming experience, or mathematical foundations to even begin making the
> things that we want.
>
> Go back to 2102/2013 when I really started to heavily use POV-Ray for
> everything, and you'll all the dumb mistakes, misunderstandings, ignorance,
> frustration, complaining, whining, and hacktastic piles of abysmal code that I
> tried my best to pump out on a tiny little laptop that resembled a cheap
> Chromebook.
>
> Gotta start somewhere.  Gotta pick something, and doggedly pursue it - finding
> every link, book, article, video, live-coding session, posting on forums where
> people are super math/computer snobs and condescending Ay Wholes, emailing
> professors and graduate students about their work or postings, .... until one
> day, 2+ years later, you finally figure it out and somehow get it to work.
>
> I was never taught matrices, linear algebra, statistics, projective geometry, or
> any of the topics that I've shoved my nose into.   I had 15 min of differential
> equations when I took physical chemistry back in .... 1993??  So after 30 years,
> I hit that wall of ignorance/forgetfulness, and that was a 1-year delay until I
> got the motivation to relearn partial second derivatives.
>
> So, there's a lot that goes into just 1 "feature" to get a basic code base, and
> then it has to be translated into "production code" that has all sorts of sanity
> checks, and plays well with the different math solvers and layers of textures
> and finishes, and ... and.... and ....
>
>
> ..... and we have no one to do that right now.
>
> So a coding we will go, until we find someone to write source code, or one of us
> learns enough C or C++ to start writing the source code - probably in an
> unofficial fork.   Like hgPOVRay38 or povr.  MegaPOV and UberPOV.  Etc.
>
>
> - BE


>

Hi BE,

I am completely with you!

> Hey - we all get these bouts of frustration that are usually linked to some
> inability to make some scene element or perform some necessary pre-rendering
> thing that most all regular computer languages have - either inbuilt, or in a
> library.
>

You used the word frustration which is what I feel when I find an interesting
macro or coding that works amazingly well but which seems to be sort of
unfinished or not fully developed. And I do not have the knowledge to add the
code that is necessary to fill in the 'gaps' I identified.
E.g. I like when a macro outputs a file with the 3D data used to produce the
image. So I added some code I copied and adapted. My goodness, it was
devastating and definitely frustrating. Nothing really worked.
I guess a tutorial would help a lot - at least it would relieve frustration -
maybe.

> We've all done a fair bit of shoving on our own.   No harm, no foul.
> If there's any code or explanations you'd like for any of the myriad projects
> that I've worked on, just let me know.
>
I really appreciate your generous offer.
For the time being I'll keep my big mouth shut, work on my Povray website and
forget about trying new macros and other new things that emerge here in the
forums (I guess the plural is fora :))).

> Gotta start somewhere.  Gotta pick something, and doggedly pursue it - finding...
>
That's called persistence. But when you are of a certain age you forget more
than you learn and what's driving you is quick success. It's like: see it, read
it, try it, adjust it and... alas: here is the miraculous outcome... or forget
it. That is the bloody user in me!

> I was never taught matrices, linear algebra, statistics, projective geometry, or ...
>
Same here and no intention to dive in. There is no space for maths when
chemistry took over.
So, thanks again for the encouraging words and insights.

- Droj

Post a reply to this message

hi,

"Droj" <803### [at] drojde> wrote:
> "Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> > ...
> > We have all delved into projects where someone else's code just looks like some
> > big pile of WTF, or worse, sat in front of the Editor unable to make the scene
> > elements that we want, because we just don't have the necessary inbuilt tools,
> > programming experience, or mathematical foundations to even begin making the
> > things that we want.

so true.  </sigh>


> You used the word frustration which is what I feel when I find an interesting
> macro or coding that works amazingly well but which seems to be sort of
> unfinished or not fully developed. And I do not have the knowledge to add the
> code that is necessary to fill in the 'gaps' I identified.
> E.g. I like when a macro outputs a file with the 3D data used to produce the
> image. So I added some code I copied and adapted. My goodness, it was
> devastating and definitely frustrating. Nothing really worked.
> I guess a tutorial would help a lot - at least it would relieve frustration -
> maybe.

just on that point, having written a "general purpose" file handling macro[*],
part of my "frustration" is that users, apparently, "hate" giving feedback (of
course it's possible there are no users of my code :-)).  did you contact the
developer about the shortcomings of the documentation ?

[*] <https://wiki.povray.org/content/User:Jr#SDL_code>
(should you find any useful, please do not hesitate to report "misgivings" ;-))


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

"jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

> [*] <https://wiki.povray.org/content/User:Jr#SDL_code>
> (should you find any useful, please do not hesitate to report "misgivings" ;-))

It never occurred to me that I could put zips of code in the wiki :(

ingo

Post a reply to this message

hi,

"ingo" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> ...
> It never occurred to me that I could put zips of code in the wiki :(

there's no time like now.. :-)  (personally, I've learned from some of the code
you've published here)


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

"jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> hi,
>
> "Droj" <803### [at] drojde> wrote:
> > "Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> > > ...
> > > We have all delved into projects where someone else's code just looks like some
> > > big pile of WTF, or worse, sat in front of the Editor unable to make the scene
> > > elements that we want, because we just don't have the necessary inbuilt tools,
> > > programming experience, or mathematical foundations to even begin making the
> > > things that we want.
>
> so true.  </sigh>
>
>
> > You used the word frustration which is what I feel when I find an interesting
> > macro or coding that works amazingly well but which seems to be sort of
> > unfinished or not fully developed. And I do not have the knowledge to add the
> > code that is necessary to fill in the 'gaps' I identified.
> > E.g. I like when a macro outputs a file with the 3D data used to produce the
> > image. So I added some code I copied and adapted. My goodness, it was
> > devastating and definitely frustrating. Nothing really worked.
> > I guess a tutorial would help a lot - at least it would relieve frustration -
> > maybe.
>
> just on that point, having written a "general purpose" file handling macro[*],
> part of my "frustration" is that users, apparently, "hate" giving feedback (of
> course it's possible there are no users of my code :-)).  did you contact the
> developer about the shortcomings of the documentation ?
>
> [*] <https://wiki.povray.org/content/User:Jr#SDL_code>
> (should you find any useful, please do not hesitate to report "misgivings" ;-))
>
>
> regards, jr.
Hi jr,

> just on that point, having written a "general purpose" file handling macro[*],
> part of my "frustration" is that users, apparently, "hate" giving feedback (of
> course it's possible there are no users of my code :-)).  did you contact the
> developer about the shortcomings of the documentation ?

No, it's not the shortcomings of the developer's documentation. I was lamenting
about my own shortcomings not being able to add some little code which outputs a
file with something like 'sphere - cylinder -'. The developer is innocent.

I did not know that you have such a 'wiki' treasure cove. At the moment I do not
use Povray 3.8 (still 3.7) but I will try your treasures when beta phase is
over.
regards, Droj

Post a reply to this message