I'm pretty much a beginner with POV and I'm just curious the most common
way to develop coordinates. I mean, it would seem that a modeler is very
useful for creating scenes and placing objects in certain places until
it looks right, however I have read that a modeler isn't the way to go.
(It doesn't seem like any of the IRTC winners use modelers) Other than a
modeler, how can one create a scene by just typing in code? Wouldn't you
need some sort of visual representation of what the hell you're doing?
Or maybe it's just me, and thats the attitude of all beginners.

Matt Morris

Post a reply to this message

Matt Morris wrote:
> 
> I'm pretty much a beginner with POV and I'm just curious the most common
> way to develop coordinates. I mean, it would seem that a modeler is very
> useful for creating scenes and placing objects in certain places until
> it looks right, however I have read that a modeler isn't the way to go.
> (It doesn't seem like any of the IRTC winners use modelers) Other than a
> modeler, how can one create a scene by just typing in code? Wouldn't you
> need some sort of visual representation of what the hell you're doing?
> Or maybe it's just me, and thats the attitude of all beginners.
> 
> Matt Morris

I'll try to answer this one but may fall short.

Yes you will find the proverbial newbie scrambling to to find a
modeler to get a visual representation. It's a natural byproduct
of using paint and Cad programs I would imagine. There is a lot
of merit in using a modeler in the beginning just to get a feel
for how the coordinate system works. I personaly started using
pov without a modeler and suffered as a result for quite a while.
Now I am perfectly at home in this script driven environment and
have no need for one. Others will start with a modeling program
and slowly gravitate away from it when they realize there are
features in pov that no modeler supports and are forced to work
with text only. So you see there are advantages and disadvantages
no matter which way you go. Moray is by far the most popular
modeling program for Pov but I never liked it because it uses
a reversed coordinate sytem that is not the default used by Pov.

Opinion wise I suggest you use whatever method suits you and allows
you to be as creative as you can be. If you follow my lead you will
be a better artist than the modeler alone Pov user because you will
understand the inner working of Pov to a greater extint than you can
in a modeler only environment. This is not to say you can't achieve
great results in a modeler only environment I just feel you will limit
your possibilities.


Any help ?


-- 
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

As a matter of fact, that did help. I guess getting good at POV isn't just
about reading the
manual a few times; it takes lots of practice. I assume being able to place
objects on the screen
with just script takes developed skill, but most of all patience. Here's a
question for the advanced
users: what other programs do you use? (to make bezier patches, advanced
shapes, etc..) And
another thing, how many of you true POVies are artists away from the computer?
Is that something
that really helps?

Ken wrote:

> Matt Morris wrote:
> >
> > I'm pretty much a beginner with POV and I'm just curious the most common
> > way to develop coordinates. I mean, it would seem that a modeler is very
> > useful for creating scenes and placing objects in certain places until
> > it looks right, however I have read that a modeler isn't the way to go.
> > (It doesn't seem like any of the IRTC winners use modelers) Other than a
> > modeler, how can one create a scene by just typing in code? Wouldn't you
> > need some sort of visual representation of what the hell you're doing?
> > Or maybe it's just me, and thats the attitude of all beginners.
> >
> > Matt Morris
>
> I'll try to answer this one but may fall short.
>
> Yes you will find the proverbial newbie scrambling to to find a
> modeler to get a visual representation. It's a natural byproduct
> of using paint and Cad programs I would imagine. There is a lot
> of merit in using a modeler in the beginning just to get a feel
> for how the coordinate system works. I personaly started using
> pov without a modeler and suffered as a result for quite a while.
> Now I am perfectly at home in this script driven environment and
> have no need for one. Others will start with a modeling program
> and slowly gravitate away from it when they realize there are
> features in pov that no modeler supports and are forced to work
> with text only. So you see there are advantages and disadvantages
> no matter which way you go. Moray is by far the most popular
> modeling program for Pov but I never liked it because it uses
> a reversed coordinate sytem that is not the default used by Pov.
>
> Opinion wise I suggest you use whatever method suits you and allows
> you to be as creative as you can be. If you follow my lead you will
> be a better artist than the modeler alone Pov user because you will
> understand the inner working of Pov to a greater extint than you can
> in a modeler only environment. This is not to say you can't achieve
> great results in a modeler only environment I just feel you will limit
> your possibilities.
>
> Any help ?
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

Matt Morris wrote:
> 
> As a matter of fact, that did help. I guess getting good at POV isn't just
> about reading the
> manual a few times; it takes lots of practice. I assume being able to place
> objects on the screen
> with just script takes developed skill, but most of all patience. Here's a
> question for the advanced
> users: what other programs do you use? (to make bezier patches, advanced
> shapes, etc..) And
> another thing, how many of you true POVies are artists away from the computer?
> Is that something
> that really helps?

For height fields I suggest Leveller and for bezier patches I suggest
a program called SPatch. Rather than listing them all here I'll send
you my bookmarks of all the pov related utility programs I have links
for. This way you can evaluate for yourself their worth and if you
care to download them.

I am not an artist other than that which is created with Pov. There
are a small few that frequent the groups here that are though. I would
guess the majority are hobbyist. Most professionals go for the high
end commercial packages.

-- 
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

Yes, sPatch is good for diving into shapes, as long as you get the
general idea of such programs to begin with.
As for the other things said, I kind of started out making graphics
through the old basic language back in the late 80's then bought a
simple CAD program that only drew in wire frame, soon after my first
modelor/renderer/raytracer, then Polyray and finally POV-Ray by 1994. I
kind of hated the modelor (CAD) type thing is probably why I delved back
into the realm of scripting it out instead. As Ken said, it depends
greatly on the individual, probably the most important factor there is.
I've managed to get one "modeled" piece I made in sPatch into a
"textual" model out of both need and curiosity. Reason I don't use the
modellors is that I dislike wireframe and object manipulation in a
GUI-based program. Preference, skill factor, makes a big difference.

Bet Ken had some good links there too.


Ken wrote:
> 
> Matt Morris wrote:
> >
> > As a matter of fact, that did help. I guess getting good at POV isn't just
> > about reading the
> > manual a few times; it takes lots of practice. I assume being able to place
> > objects on the screen
> > with just script takes developed skill, but most of all patience. Here's a
> > question for the advanced
> > users: what other programs do you use? (to make bezier patches, advanced
> > shapes, etc..) And
> > another thing, how many of you true POVies are artists away from the computer?
> > Is that something
> > that really helps?
> 
> For height fields I suggest Leveller and for bezier patches I suggest
> a program called SPatch. Rather than listing them all here I'll send
> you my bookmarks of all the pov related utility programs I have links
> for. This way you can evaluate for yourself their worth and if you
> care to download them.
> 
> I am not an artist other than that which is created with Pov. There
> are a small few that frequent the groups here that are though. I would
> guess the majority are hobbyist. Most professionals go for the high
> end commercial packages.
> 
> --
> Ken Tyler
> 
> tyl### [at] pacbellnet

-- 
 omniVERSE: beyond the universe
  http://members.aol.com/inversez/POVring.htm
=Bob

Post a reply to this message

Not that I disagree with Ken, but I don't see any harm in going about
learning in any particular way.  There's no rules to follow, just do
what's easiest.  I started out doing only script and then moved on to
modellers.  I still do most of my POV-Ray stuff by hand, but I also
spend as much time working with other modellers, and often convert the
models to POV-Ray compatible files.  It's worked well for me.

If you're going to be using POV, might as well learn the language.  I
estimate it takes a few months to get it all down, then you're free to
do just about anything without having to look things up much.

-mike

Ken wrote:
> 
> Matt Morris wrote:
> >
> > I'm pretty much a beginner with POV and I'm just curious the most common
> > way to develop coordinates. I mean, it would seem that a modeler is very
> > useful for creating scenes and placing objects in certain places until
> > it looks right, however I have read that a modeler isn't the way to go.
> > (It doesn't seem like any of the IRTC winners use modelers) Other than a
> > modeler, how can one create a scene by just typing in code? Wouldn't you
> > need some sort of visual representation of what the hell you're doing?
> > Or maybe it's just me, and thats the attitude of all beginners.
> >
> > Matt Morris
> 
> I'll try to answer this one but may fall short.
> 
> Yes you will find the proverbial newbie scrambling to to find a
> modeler to get a visual representation. It's a natural byproduct
> of using paint and Cad programs I would imagine. There is a lot
> of merit in using a modeler in the beginning just to get a feel
> for how the coordinate system works. I personaly started using
> pov without a modeler and suffered as a result for quite a while.
> Now I am perfectly at home in this script driven environment and
> have no need for one. Others will start with a modeling program
> and slowly gravitate away from it when they realize there are
> features in pov that no modeler supports and are forced to work
> with text only. So you see there are advantages and disadvantages
> no matter which way you go. Moray is by far the most popular
> modeling program for Pov but I never liked it because it uses
> a reversed coordinate sytem that is not the default used by Pov.
> 
> Opinion wise I suggest you use whatever method suits you and allows
> you to be as creative as you can be. If you follow my lead you will
> be a better artist than the modeler alone Pov user because you will
> understand the inner working of Pov to a greater extint than you can
> in a modeler only environment. This is not to say you can't achieve
> great results in a modeler only environment I just feel you will limit
> your possibilities.
> 
> Any help ?
> 
> --
> Ken Tyler
> 
> tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
: Moray is by far the most popular
: modeling program for Pov but I never liked it because it uses
: a reversed coordinate sytem that is not the default used by Pov.

  It still remains as one of the greatest mysteries in computer land to me
why there cannot be an option in moray preferences settings to change the
coordinate system. Something like "Use POV-Ray-style left-handed coordinates"
with a checkbox which you can turn on.
  Perhaps this great mystery will be revealed some day...

-- 
main(i){char*_="BdsyFBThhHFBThhHFRz]NFTITQF|DJIFHQhhF";while(i=
*_++)for(;i>1;printf("%s",i-70?i&1?"[]":" ":(i=0,"\n")),i/=2);} /*- Warp. -*/

Post a reply to this message

Nieminen Mika wrote:
> 
> Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
> : Moray is by far the most popular
> : modeling program for Pov but I never liked it because it uses
> : a reversed coordinate sytem that is not the default used by Pov.
> 
>   It still remains as one of the greatest mysteries in computer land to me
> why there cannot be an option in moray preferences settings to change the
> coordinate system. Something like "Use POV-Ray-style left-handed coordinates"
> with a checkbox which you can turn on.
>   Perhaps this great mystery will be revealed some day...
> 

I asked Lutz about this once and his reply was that he is only
comfortable in a right handed system and so that is the way it's
going to stay. If we could retrain Lutz then maybe someday it
will change.

-- 
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
: I asked Lutz about this once and his reply was that he is only
: comfortable in a right handed system and so that is the way it's
: going to stay. If we could retrain Lutz then maybe someday it
: will change.

  I don't understand.
  The fact that you _can_ use a left handed system doesn't mean that you
_have_ to do so. If he implements the coordinate system switching, that
doesn't mean he has to start using the left handed system.
  Why is it so difficult to just implement the feature for those who want
to use it? If he doesn't like the left handed system, nobody is forcing
him to use it.
  I can't see what harm would an option like this do to the program.

-- 
main(i){char*_="BdsyFBThhHFBThhHFRz]NFTITQF|DJIFHQhhF";while(i=
*_++)for(;i>1;printf("%s",i-70?i&1?"[]":" ":(i=0,"\n")),i/=2);} /*- Warp. -*/

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote in message <36ABF76A.3C524C31@pacbell.net>...
[snip]
>Others will start with a modeling program
>and slowly gravitate away from it when they realize there are
>features in pov that no modeler supports and are forced to work
>with text only.
[snip]

And then there are others (very comfortable with programming and scripting
in general) who never "gravitate away" from modelers, simply prefering their
ease of use and instant visual feedback over a script-language, and instead
using their programming skills for writing tools and plug-ins for stuff not
possible in their modeler of choice. You know, about a year ago I planned an
image that would involve many trees, which I had no idea how to build in
Moray, so I set out to write a tool to help me with that - alas, the tool is
there, but the image is still only a figment of my imagination... ;-)

Johannes.

Post a reply to this message

BTW: Check out warps VFAQ (if you havn't already). It may save you some
trouble...
http://www.students.tut.fi/~warp/povVFAQ.html
(I think Warp has some other URL for it that he prefers, but I can't find it
at the moment...)

Johannes.

Matt Morris wrote in message <36ABE3A1.68501DCA@ucla.edu>...
>I'm pretty much a beginner with POV and I'm just curious the most common
>way to develop coordinates. I mean, it would seem that a modeler is very
>useful for creating scenes and placing objects in certain places until
>it looks right, however I have read that a modeler isn't the way to go.
>(It doesn't seem like any of the IRTC winners use modelers) Other than a
>modeler, how can one create a scene by just typing in code? Wouldn't you
>need some sort of visual representation of what the hell you're doing?
>Or maybe it's just me, and thats the attitude of all beginners.
>
>Matt Morris
>

Post a reply to this message

I agree. I am comfortable with POV's scripting language, yet I still use
Moray all of the time.  When I have very simple scenes to set up, I sometimes
just type it up quickly in the text editor.

I do feel that having a good knowledge of the scripting language is a great
help even if you use a modeller.  Also, as some pointed out, there are some
features that are not supported by any modeller, so I find myself tweaking
almost all of my scenes in some way.

-Nathan

Johannes Hubert wrote:
> 
> And then there are others (very comfortable with programming and scripting
> in general) who never "gravitate away" from modelers, simply prefering their
> ease of use and instant visual feedback over a script-language, and instead
> using their programming skills for writing tools and plug-ins for stuff not
> possible in their modeler of choice. You know, about a year ago I planned an
> image that would involve many trees, which I had no idea how to build in
> Moray, so I set out to write a tool to help me with that - alas, the tool is
> there, but the image is still only a figment of my imagination... ;-)
> 
> Johannes.

Post a reply to this message

Johannes Hubert wrote:
> 
> Ken wrote in message <36ABF76A.3C524C31@pacbell.net>...
> [snip]
> >Others will start with a modeling program
> >and slowly gravitate away from it when they realize there are
> >features in pov that no modeler supports and are forced to work
> >with text only.
> [snip]
> 
> And then there are others (very comfortable with programming and scripting
> in general) who never "gravitate away" from modelers, simply prefering their
> ease of use and instant visual feedback over a script-language, and instead
> using their programming skills for writing tools and plug-ins for stuff not
> possible in their modeler of choice. You know, about a year ago I planned an
> image that would involve many trees, which I had no idea how to build in
> Moray, so I set out to write a tool to help me with that - alas, the tool is
> there, but the image is still only a figment of my imagination... ;-)
> 
> Johannes.

Yep, I've tried several modellers but can't find the patience to get familiar
with any of them, while I do have the patience to type out the code (the
keyboard-cowboy-syndrome). It's the same with HTML. Odd, actually...

Remcodd

Post a reply to this message

Remco de Korte wrote:
> 
> Johannes Hubert wrote:
> >
> > Ken wrote in message <36ABF76A.3C524C31@pacbell.net>...
> > [snip]
> > >Others will start with a modeling program
> > >and slowly gravitate away from it when they realize there are
> > >features in pov that no modeler supports and are forced to work
> > >with text only.
> > [snip]
> >
> > And then there are others (very comfortable with programming and scripting
> > in general) who never "gravitate away" from modelers, simply prefering their
> > ease of use and instant visual feedback over a script-language, and instead
> > using their programming skills for writing tools and plug-ins for stuff not
> > possible in their modeler of choice. You know, about a year ago I planned an
> > image that would involve many trees, which I had no idea how to build in
> > Moray, so I set out to write a tool to help me with that - alas, the tool is
> > there, but the image is still only a figment of my imagination... ;-)
> >
> > Johannes.
> 
> Yep, I've tried several modellers but can't find the patience to get familiar
> with any of them, while I do have the patience to type out the code (the
> keyboard-cowboy-syndrome). It's the same with HTML. Odd, actually...
> 
> Remcodd

Agree with you here.... I once learned AutoCad, and was very satisfied with the work I
could produce, even in 3D. Back then, I had no idea about POv, and when I came to POV,
I
started to code it by hand, found it far easier than my last projects before that(A
vesa
3D lib in pascal) and stuck with it. I've tried several modellers(Calimax, Moray,
PovLab,
sPatch) and I'm not satisfied with any of them, mostly because I haven't got enough
patience with a modeller to come to the same stage I am in text base, so I see no gain
in
using them.

//Spider

Post a reply to this message

Johannes Hubert <jhu### [at] algonetse> wrote:
: (I think Warp has some other URL for it that he prefers, but I can't find it
: at the moment...)

  It should be easy to remember.
  The only thing you really have to memorize is "iki". Perhaps you could
remember this by thinking it resembles the acronym "aka" (also know as), but
with i's instead of a's.
  By now you should know that I'm finnish, so the beginning of the url should
be easy to remember: http://iki.fi/
  My nickname should also be familiar, so the url continues:
http://iki.fi/warp/
  And now you only have to remember the file name povVFAQ.html. So the
complete url is:
http://iki.fi/warp/povVFAQ.html

  Perhaps I should add one question to the VFAQ: Where is the VFAQ?
  :)

-- 
main(i){char*_="BdsyFBThhHFBThhHFRz]NFTITQF|DJIFHQhhF";while(i=
*_++)for(;i>1;printf("%s",i-70?i&1?"[]":" ":(i=0,"\n")),i/=2);} /*- Warp. -*/

Post a reply to this message

Nieminen Mika wrote:
> 
> Johannes Hubert <jhu### [at] algonetse> wrote:
> : (I think Warp has some other URL for it that he prefers, but I can't find it
> : at the moment...)
> 
>   It should be easy to remember.
>   The only thing you really have to memorize is "iki". Perhaps you could
> remember this by thinking it resembles the acronym "aka" (also know as), but
> with i's instead of a's.
>   By now you should know that I'm finnish, so the beginning of the url should
> be easy to remember: http://iki.fi/
>   My nickname should also be familiar, so the url continues:
> http://iki.fi/warp/
>   And now you only have to remember the file name povVFAQ.html. So the
> complete url is:
> http://iki.fi/warp/povVFAQ.html
> 
>   Perhaps I should add one question to the VFAQ: Where is the VFAQ?
>   :)

You say you are finnish ? Is your finnish shiny or dull ?

:)

-- 
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

Good for you ;)


Spider wrote:
> 
> Agree with you here.... I once learned AutoCad, and was very satisfied with the work
I
> could produce, even in 3D. Back then, I had no idea about POv, and when I came to
POV, I
> started to code it by hand, found it far easier than my last projects before that(A
vesa
> 3D lib in pascal) and stuck with it. I've tried several modellers(Calimax, Moray,
PovLab,
> sPatch) and I'm not satisfied with any of them, mostly because I haven't got enough
> patience with a modeller to come to the same stage I am in text base, so I see no
gain in
> using them.
> 
> //Spider

-- 
 omniVERSE: beyond the universe
  http://members.aol.com/inversez/POVring.htm
=Bob

Post a reply to this message

Thanks for your "memorization-manual" ;-) but now I don't really need it
anymore, since I updated my bookmark with the URL you gave me - which is for
me by far the easiest way to "memorize" an URL :-)

Johannes.

Post a reply to this message

Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
: You say you are finnish ? Is your finnish shiny or dull ?

object
{ Warp
  pigment { color Skin }
  finnish { Dull }
  interior { Gold }
}

-- 
main(i){char*_="BdsyFBThhHFBThhHFRz]NFTITQF|DJIFHQhhF";while(i=
*_++)for(;i>1;printf("%s",i-70?i&1?"[]":" ":(i=0,"\n")),i/=2);} /*- Warp. -*/

Post a reply to this message

Ken schrieb in Nachricht <36ABF76A.3C524C31@pacbell.net>...

>Opinion wise I suggest you use whatever method suits you and allows
>you to be as creative as you can be. If you follow my lead you will
>be a better artist than the modeler alone Pov user because you will
>understand the inner working of Pov to a greater extint than you can
>in a modeler only environment. This is not to say you can't achieve
>great results in a modeler only environment I just feel you will limit
>your possibilities.


I agree with you. Modellers are nice for easily cooking up a scene and
visualising it (I have been working on a visualisation of Escher's
"Ascending/Descending" and it would have been hard to experiment with the
camera position (which is a very crucíal thing in this scene) without a
modeller), but they lack the fine tuning of the scene language. Later on I
developed a #macro to calculate the placement (and size, which is the trick)
of some parts of the stairs, so I abandoned the model from the modeller.

Also the textures and lighting can be tested a bit easier with a good
modeller (or texture program).

To Matt's question I would say, the best thing is to use a lot of paper in
the beginning. Later on, you will find out you'll be able to do most of
these things in your head instead of using pen and paper. If you can do
that, you'll find you don't need a modeller anymore, unless you want to do
something like the Escher scene.

--
Rudy Velthuis

Post a reply to this message

Nieminen Mika schrieb in Nachricht <36ac6bc5.0@news.povray.org>...

>  Why is it so difficult to just implement the feature for those who want
>to use it? If he doesn't like the left handed system, nobody is forcing
>him to use it.
>  I can't see what harm would an option like this do to the program.


How true!

The program should offer what the (paying) customers need and want, not what
the programmers like. The philosophy of the program wouldn't change a lot
and propably the code changes would be rather trivial (if the program code
is well designed, at least).

--
Rudy Velthuis

Post a reply to this message