 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Is it possible to override the phong or other characteristic of a
texture from an include file? Say for instance I wanted to reduce the
default reflectivity of a polished marble texture -- could I simply:
#include "stones.inc" (at top of pov file, of course)
[...]
object { whatever texture { T_Stone8 phong 0.001 scale 0.08 } }
just as an example?
Or would I have to copy in the relevant lines from the textures.inc file
and make the modifications needed there? (And I guess re-declare the
texture with a different name to avoid confusion?)
TIA,
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3C9A12CD.B576E30A@ncsl.dcr.state.nc.us>, Mark M. Wilson wrote:
> Is it possible to override the phong or other characteristic of a
> texture from an include file? Say for instance I wanted to reduce the
> default reflectivity of a polished marble texture -- could I simply:
>
> #include "stones.inc" (at top of pov file, of course)
>
> [...]
>
> object { whatever texture { T_Stone8 phong 0.001 scale 0.08 } }
>
of course you can, the last statement always oiverride the previous. But I
think that if you add finish{phong 0.01}, you'll override all other data
about finish, and I'm not sure that's exactly what you want!
-- Bruce
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mark M. Wilson" <mmw### [at] ncsl dcrstatencus> wrote in message
news:3C9A12CD.B576E30A@ncsl.dcr.state.nc.us...
<snip>
Yes (but I think you're example would have fallen over).
Try:
#include "stones.inc"
sphere{0,1
texture { T_Stone8 pigment{Red}}
}
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, I just tried to do this, and it was rejected. I entered the
following to describe the texture of a CSG object:
texture { T_Stone9 phong 0.01 scale 0.08 }
and got the error message:
no matching } in texture, phong found instead.
So where should I put it?
Is that what you meant by my example "fall(ing) over?"
--Mark
"Mark M. Wilson" wrote:
>
> Is it possible to override the phong or other characteristic of a
> texture from an include file? Say for instance I wanted to reduce the
> default reflectivity of a polished marble texture -- could I simply:
>
> #include "stones.inc" (at top of pov file, of course)
>
> [...]
>
> object { whatever texture { T_Stone8 phong 0.001 scale 0.08 } }
>
> just as an example?
>
> Or would I have to copy in the relevant lines from the textures.inc file
> and make the modifications needed there? (And I guess re-declare the
> texture with a different name to avoid confusion?)
>
> TIA,
> Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mark M. Wilson"
> Well, I just tried to do this, and it was rejected. I entered the
> following to describe the texture of a CSG object:
> texture { T_Stone9 phong 0.01 scale 0.08 }
>
texture{T_Stone9 finish{phong 0.01} scale 0.08}
Basically, take a look at the source - texture is a wrapper for pigment,
normal and finish. So a texture looks like:
texture{
pigment{Red}
finish{reflection 1 ambient 0 diffuse 0}
normal{bozo}
}
> Is that what you meant by my example "fall(ing) over?"
Yep.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Melly wrote:
> Yes (but I think you're example would have fallen over).
Is that British for invalid syntax?
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
news:3C9A9BE7.70C1AD13@pacbell.net...
>
>
> Tom Melly wrote:
>
> > Yes (but I think you're example would have fallen over).
>
> Is that British for invalid syntax?
>
No - the British would have been "your code, whilst clear in its intent, would
not have been parsed correctly due to the rigidity of the parser in such
matters, and it's insistence on adhering to the protocols, arbitary as they may
be".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3c9b0279$1@news.povray.org>, Tom Melly wrote:
> No - the British would have been "your code, whilst clear in its intent, would
> not have been parsed correctly due to the rigidity of the parser in such
> matters, and it's insistence on adhering to the protocols, arbitary as they may
> be".
>
Easy to laugh at non English speakers...
-- Bruce (non native English speaker at all)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I don't think the intent was to laugh at non-native English speakers,
but rather perhaps the differences between American English vs. British
over the Canadians' "adaptations." (I'm sure there must be SOME).
--Mark
bru### [at] pingouinrez-gifsupelecfr wrote:
>
> In article <3c9b0279$1@news.povray.org>, Tom Melly wrote:
> > No - the British would have been "your code, whilst clear in its intent, would
> > not have been parsed correctly due to the rigidity of the parser in such
> > matters, and it's insistence on adhering to the protocols, arbitary as they may
> > be".
> >
>
> Easy to laugh at non English speakers...
>
> -- Bruce (non native English speaker at all)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
