 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jon,
Thanks for the suggestion. I eventually do want to do my own code, but
since I'm just..(and I mean JUST) starting out, I want to play a little bit
before I settle into learning all the finer points. I try not to think of it
as having to unlearn something later on, but more of whetting my appetite
for the main course. Are there any good sites that I can go and learn about
code, or is it all in the documentation?
Missi
Jon A. Cruz <jon### [at] geocities com> wrote in message
news:383D8C6C.1B1E182A@geocities.com...
> See wrote:
>
> > Hi.
> > I just started exploring pov-ray and I was wondering what the best
> > modeling program, as far as freeware goes, there is to download? Any
help
> > what-so-ever is more than welcome.
> > Thanks,
> > Missi
> >
> > You can also e-mail me at gyp### [at] vampirehuntercom
>
> Modelers are for wimps!!!!
>
> code! code! code! code!
> :-)
>
> But seriously, try to go through the documentation and follow the
examples.
> There is so much more that can be done by hand that is hard to deal with
in
> modelers. There is a bit more of a learning curve, but then you don't have
> as much to unlearn later.
>
> --
> "My new computer's got the clocks, it rocks
> But it was obsolete before I opened the box" - W.A.Y.
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
See <hel### [at] toolcitynet> wrote:
: Thanks for the suggestion. I eventually do want to do my own code, but
: since I'm just..(and I mean JUST) starting out, I want to play a little bit
: before I settle into learning all the finer points.
This is only my opinion:
I think that it's more difficult to learn the povray scripting language
if you first accustom yourself to a modeller (like moray). The reason is
that you become lazy in many things with the modeller and the more time
you spend with the modeller, the harder it will be to start to learn the
scripting language. It's just so much easier to use the modeller...
As I said, it's only my opinion. I have used moray quite a lot and know
it pretty well, but still I make about 99.9% of my images by hand.
It helps a lot if you know well some programming language.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Handcoding is the thing.
I started out just like you, about 7 months ago, with no use of modelers.
I handcoded a picture for IRTC round Horror, and it came out 27 of 110.
All the help are found in the documentation.
Go through the turorials, and look at some other peoples work, it helps a
lot.
Good luck :)
--
Peter
http://hertel.no/bigone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Peter Hertel <big### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:384e6d1c@news.povray.org...
> Handcoding is the thing.
> I started out just like you, about 7 months ago, with no use of modelers.
> I handcoded a picture for IRTC round Horror, and it came out 27 of 110.
> All the help are found in the documentation.
> Go through the turorials, and look at some other peoples work, it helps a
> lot.
> Good luck :)
>
> --
> Peter
> http://hertel.no/bigone
>
>
I started with hand codeing.........Then I Gave MovRay a try but I did not
like that much, It was good for moveing the camera right but I could not
load and pov files so there was no use for that feachure anyways.....
Ambis
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hey, I'm fairly new to this stuff ( this stuff being raytracing, modelling,
ect ) I've read so many times that its better to learn the pov-ray code
before you start using modellers...I've read what I could understand of the
Pov-ray documentation, but in it there seems ( to me anyway ) that there is
a gap between the basics ( basic shapes, cameras, lights that sort of
stuff ) and more advanced ( for a begginer anyway :) shapes
patches,blobs, ect ) im sure all this will come clear to me with time and
practice, luckily time is all i seem to have....one upside to being a bum :)
Anyway I've learned some of the basic code, then i downloaded spatch, moray,
and an export from spatch to moray and have been able to make some pretty
cool stuff ( compared to red sphere on a checker plane i started off with :)
At this point with the modellers it seems like "re-inventing the wheel"
learning all the pov code....for me "this point" is fairly basic...once it
gets more advanced is there heaps you can do with the pov code that a
modeller cant do?
sorry about the "longness" of this :)
thanks
Cameron
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cameron Cooper wrote:
> At this point with the modellers it seems like "re-inventing the wheel"
> learning all the pov code....for me "this point" is fairly basic...once it
> gets more advanced is there heaps you can do with the pov code that a
> modeller cant do?
Yes.
SPatch is good for certain objects, but you can get much more advanced with
POV-code.
--
"My new computer's got the clocks, it rocks
But it was obsolete before I opened the box" - W.A.Y.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> At this point with the modellers it seems like "re-inventing the wheel"
> learning all the pov code....for me "this point" is fairly basic...once it
> gets more advanced is there heaps you can do with the pov code that a
> modeller cant do?
As someone who makes extensive use of a modeller (Moray, IMO, the best one
there is and I tried several), let me say that being able to handcode POV is
invaluable. None of the modellers (to my knowledge) implement ALL of the
features of POV. Additionally, many generous individuals out there create
wonderful tools that open up a world of possibilities with POV -- such as
geodesic domes. Those aren't automatically incorporated into the modellers.
However, the level of knowledge you need to incorporate such features is not
the same level of knowledge needed by the people who "handcode only". A
basic familiarity with how everything works and the ability to look at code
and have some understanding of what you're looking at allows you to hand
edit in the features that are not included in the modeller output.
Additionally, you need to be able to spot problems. I'm currently working
on a scene with several thousand primitives -- all of a sudden, the
generated code was corrupted. From looking at Moray, everything seemed
fine. I checked the error message that POV generated and opened up the
include file that contained the error. Somehow an object (non-primitive)
generated by a third-party plug-in had gotten hosed -- I deleted the object
and everything was fine. Because I could look at the code and see the
problem, I knew which object out of several thousand was causing the
problem.
When using POV, I often wish I had the math skills of any number of people
that produce some of the more amazing items with POV all hand-coded... but
the fact of the matter is, I don't, and I don't have any interest in
devoting several years of study towards gaining them. I've come to terms
with the fact that the two math teachers in my family used up all the math
genes by the time I came along. ;)
Claire
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I belive you can make very complex models with primitives.
I'm no proffesional POV-coder but my image at irtc ended up 25/101 and that
was made out of primitives only. (Err.. one little blob object) check it out
here:
http://hertel.no/bigone/graphics/povray/stills/theend.jpg
I think it's fun playing around with text, instead of the point-and-click
stuff.
CSG forever :)
--
Peter
http://hertel.no/bigone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cameron Cooper wrote:
>
> Hey, I'm fairly new to this stuff ( this stuff being raytracing, modelling,
> ect ) I've read so many times that its better to learn the pov-ray code
> before you start using modellers...I've read what I could understand of the
> Pov-ray documentation, but in it there seems ( to me anyway ) that there is
> a gap between the basics ( basic shapes, cameras, lights that sort of
> stuff ) and more advanced ( for a begginer anyway :) shapes
> patches,blobs, ect ) im sure all this will come clear to me with time and
> practice, luckily time is all i seem to have....one upside to being a bum :)
> Anyway I've learned some of the basic code, then i downloaded spatch, moray,
> and an export from spatch to moray and have been able to make some pretty
> cool stuff ( compared to red sphere on a checker plane i started off with :)
> At this point with the modellers it seems like "re-inventing the wheel"
> learning all the pov code....for me "this point" is fairly basic...once it
> gets more advanced is there heaps you can do with the pov code that a
> modeller cant do?
>
> sorry about the "longness" of this :)
Yes, there are indeed things that you can do in POV code and not in a
modeller. For example I don't hink any of the modellers use the new
patches functions, so to be able to (ab)use any of those you'd have to
know enough pov code to integrate the new and the old.
There is also the limitation of any for om programming, macros and other
things in that area that the modellers lack. Then comes the 'fine
tuning' that I so far haven't seen done directly from a modeller. Ofc.
it might be possible now, but last time I tried the common goods, there
wasnt one with a great texture/light handling system, wich the code is.
The code offers far more flexibility and creativity than the modeller
does, though the modeller is needed for some tasks (I don't want to
model meshes directly!)
--
//Spider -- [ spider@bahnhof.se ]-[ http://darkmere.wanfear.com/ ]
And the devil in black dress watches over
My guardian angel walks away
Life is short and love is always over in the morning
Black wind come carry me far away
--"Sisters of Mercy" -- "Temple Of Love"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The definition of a POV primitive is all the primary shapes (blob,
julia_fractal, lathe, etc. included) prior to any other modifications such as
until using them in CSG, when they become non-primitive. Please correct me if
I'm wrong anyone.
Anyway, yes, the consensus shows there is more to POV-Ray than could be
constrained to a single modeling program, not meaning there aren't real good
ones to use though. It's just that when it comes to the idiosyncrosy nothing
else will do except to go into the pov scripting. Math used for special
texturing or object motion might be a good example.
Bob
"Peter Hertel" <big### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:387cbefe@news.povray.org...
> I belive you can make very complex models with primitives.
> I'm no proffesional POV-coder but my image at irtc ended up 25/101 and that
> was made out of primitives only. (Err.. one little blob object) check it out
> here:
> http://hertel.no/bigone/graphics/povray/stills/theend.jpg
> I think it's fun playing around with text, instead of the point-and-click
> stuff.
> CSG forever :)
>
> --
> Peter
> http://hertel.no/bigone
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
