Hi,

	I've used POV-Ray off and on for 10 years, but only got a bit serious
in the last two (serious=trying something 2-3 times a year).

	Right now I'm just trying to create shapes accurately and model their
texture well for practice - not with any artistic goal in mind, but just
to learn how to use POV-Ray to get stuff done creatively.

	My real question is, "Should I learn how to use any external software
like JPatch to assist me in drawing my objects?". I've always assumed
that this was a bad idea for beginners, but is it really?

	Just want the opinions of those who learned POV-Ray well - did they put
off using such utilities till they felt they were good enough with the SDL?

	Thanks.

-- 
When an agnostic dies, does he go to the "great perhaps"?


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 	I've used POV-Ray off and on for 10 years, but only got a bit serious
> in the last two (serious=trying something 2-3 times a year).
> 
> 	Right now I'm just trying to create shapes accurately and model their
> texture well for practice - not with any artistic goal in mind, but just
> to learn how to use POV-Ray to get stuff done creatively.
> 
> 	My real question is, "Should I learn how to use any external software
> like JPatch to assist me in drawing my objects?". I've always assumed
> that this was a bad idea for beginners, but is it really?
> 
> 	Just want the opinions of those who learned POV-Ray well - did they put
> off using such utilities till they felt they were good enough with the SDL?
> 
> 	Thanks.
> 

I'd say use the right tool for the job. I tend to use JPatch, Silo and 
Wings3d for most of my complex modeling. Whatever works for you.

Post a reply to this message

"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:42a3d0a2@news.povray.org...
> Hi,
>
> I've used POV-Ray off and on for 10 years, but only got a bit serious
> in the last two (serious=trying something 2-3 times a year).
>
> Right now I'm just trying to create shapes accurately and model their
> texture well for practice - not with any artistic goal in mind, but just
> to learn how to use POV-Ray to get stuff done creatively.
>
> My real question is, "Should I learn how to use any external software
> like JPatch to assist me in drawing my objects?". I've always assumed
> that this was a bad idea for beginners, but is it really?
>
> Just want the opinions of those who learned POV-Ray well - did they put
> off using such utilities till they felt they were good enough with the
SDL?
>
> Thanks.
>

I don't think it's bad. Whatever gets results that keeps your interest is
good. For some people, that is seeing what you are designing. For others
it's the elegance of a programming construct in POV's scene description
language (SDL) that creates something visual.

I started off with Moray, and tinkered in POV's SDL at the same time. Some
parts of Moray are great, but I got annoyed with making CSG shapes in it.
But the things I learned by using Moray helped make the transition to pure
SDL a little easier.

Now however, I'm going back to using visual tools like Blender for some
things. A lot of people use Wings3d. The use of external programs makes
POV-Ray sort of a collage program. In a collage you take elements created
elsewhere and integrate them all on the same canvas. But then sometimes you
paint directly on the canvas of a collage as well. I guess POV is both the
paint and the glue in that analogy.

I don't think there is any harm in using external tools. In the end, it's
all about doing what makes you happy.

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 	I've used POV-Ray off and on for 10 years, but only got a bit serious
> in the last two (serious=trying something 2-3 times a year).
> 
> 	Right now I'm just trying to create shapes accurately and model their
> texture well for practice - not with any artistic goal in mind, but just
> to learn how to use POV-Ray to get stuff done creatively.
> 
> 	My real question is, "Should I learn how to use any external software
> like JPatch to assist me in drawing my objects?". I've always assumed
> that this was a bad idea for beginners, but is it really?
> 
> 	Just want the opinions of those who learned POV-Ray well - did they put
> off using such utilities till they felt they were good enough with the SDL?
> 
> 	Thanks.
> 
I understand what you are asking and there may be something to the idea 
that learning to use script would somehow provide fundamentals of 
insight that would be beneficial when learning a modeller that rides on 
top of the script.  But honestly, my experience was that I used what was 
the most facile for me use at any given point in time.  Sometimes a gui 
modeller adds clarity, sometimes scripting does.  My personal tendency 
was always toward scripting. I found the learning curve was always 
easier because script syntax follows a certain pattern or "logic", if 
you will, while gui interfaces always seem more opague and arbitrary to 
me.  But certainly in some situations, especially those that involve 
manual object placement, gui is obviously superior.

In terms of other elements like texturing and lighting I have always 
found the sort of metaphors that modellers often employ to structure 
that to be just added baggage.  But I can totally understand how for 
another person, who perhaps works with a vision of a more integrated 
scene from the outset, being able to get integrated feedback on the look 
of lighting/texturing as they model would be a valuable thing.  And I 
know some people favor modellers because of the facility they offer for 
object heirarchies etc.  So someone who learns on a modeller would 
probably be ahead of someone learning through scripting, when it comes 
to integrating all the elements of a scene from the outset or when 
conceiving and organizing scenes with large numbers of elements.

But I tend to view learning in a open-ended way. The "fundamentals up" 
makes sense of course but I think it is overrated.

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> Hi,

Hello, and welcome...


>  Right now I'm just trying to create shapes accurately and model their
> texture well for practice - not with any artistic goal in mind, but just
> to learn how to use POV-Ray to get stuff done creatively.

Well, there are a lot of ways to create shapes and POV can do/use most of
them, so I'd say the issue here is how comfortable are you with the
scripting interface...

>  My real question is, "Should I learn how to use any external software
> like JPatch to assist me in drawing my objects?". I've always assumed
> that this was a bad idea for beginners, but is it really?

My 'beginner' phase was entirely with Bryce not POV, and Bryce's modelling
capabilities are very limited in comparison so I tended to do most of it
with external software; spatch, poser, wings etc...

>  Just want the opinions of those who learned POV-Ray well - did they put
> off using such utilities till they felt they were good enough with the SDL?

I found that having worked with different modelers gave me a better
understanding of what was happening with SDL.  If I hadn't used spatch
before, I think trying to learn splines and lathes in POV without being
able to see what I was doing would have been slow and frustrating. But
then, I'm not a programmer and I don't have much of a math background;
someone with different experience might find those simple and intuitive.

On the other hand, I'd had enough experience playing with BASIC on my old
C-64, that I did see immediately the power of having things like while
loops and conditional branching, particularly when trying to build complex
structures. Those can get very tedious to model by hand in a patch or
subdivision modeler.

So what do you like? The best tool is the one you're comfortable with.  For
me, POV would have been difficult without the background I had from other
tools, but now that I've become accustomed to SDL I find Bryce slow and
awkward.  I still use jpatch & wings a lot for organic shapes, because
modeling them in POV is beyond me, and I use planetgenesis when I need
terrains because the math necessary for isosurface functions is also beyond
me, but everything always comes back to POV to arrange, texture & render.


> When an agnostic dies, does he go to the "great perhaps"?

As long as he's not an insomniac dyslexic agnostic... in which case he stays
up all night wondering if there is a dog...

RG

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter wrote:
> I understand what you are asking and there may be something to the idea
> that learning to use script would somehow provide fundamentals of
> insight that would be beneficial when learning a modeller that rides on
> top of the script.  But honestly, my experience was that I used what was
> the most facile for me use at any given point in time.  Sometimes a gui

	Yes, the idea of starting from the bottom up used to appeal to me
greatly earlier (I'm a math/theoretical physics/engineering person).
However, the attitude of just getting the job done is occasionally
dominant now.

	I should have said in my initial post that the question was not
intended for objects like meshes and patches - I think they were more or
less meant to be done by other utilities. My worry is that if I rely too
heavily on those utilities, I'll end up using them to create items I
could easily make using CSG in POV-Ray.

	I like programming, and I like math. I'm also much below average when
it comes to drawing (by hand). Raytracing was my first experience where
I could make images I liked (even using the computer). I like the whole
"setup" of raytracing. I like to be able to build each object at a time,
placed at the origin, at some unit scale, and then do the necessary
transformations when I'm putting it altogether.

	I haven't worked too hard with other software. They're a bit less
intuitive to me, perhaps because of my general inability to draw. JPatch
is easy to use, though. It's just that I keep struggling with issues
such as when I export to POV-Ray, the item I created is not centered,
not to the right scale, etc. Fixing that is a pain. I'm sure
JPatch/other software could remedy this problem easily, but I don't know
how.

	I looked at Blender and it seemed like quite a bit to bite on. I don't
really have much time, so if I were to learn to use a utility, it'd have
to be something I can just fiddle with 1-2 hours a week, and remember
the salient details that I learned after a whole week has gone by. I'm
not sure that's doable with Blender if you're a beginner.

	Haven't tried Wings3D.

	I use Linux, and that in itself is a constraint.

	However, I think the points given have been well taken, and I
appreciate them. I can see how one can get a better feel for the various
interpolation schemes using other utilities (where you can get more or
less instant feedback).

> In terms of other elements like texturing and lighting I have always

	I was actually only asking about modeling the shape, not texture. But
since you mention it:

	Is there any site where all the patterns are explained in detail (i.e.
shown). I'm thinking of something along the lines of:

http://www-public.tu-bs.de:8080/~y0013390/pov/cr_metric.html

	Where the pattern is "shown" in detail for various parameters. That
would be immensely helpful. A lot of the patterns in the documentation
are described mathematically, but I think images will make it easier to
see the effect of the math and various parameters.

> But I tend to view learning in a open-ended way. The "fundamentals up"
> makes sense of course but I think it is overrated.

	Well, I would say, "not very effective". I guess one needs a blend of
both, as long as it is made clear what is fundamental and what isn't.

-- 
When an agnostic dies, does he go to the "great perhaps"?


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:

> 	Yes, the idea of starting from the bottom up used to appeal to me
> greatly earlier (I'm a math/theoretical physics/engineering person).

Euclidean proofs and all that :)


> However, the attitude of just getting the job done is occasionally
> dominant now.
> 
> 	I should have said in my initial post that the question was not
> intended for objects like meshes and patches - I think they were more or
> less meant to be done by other utilities. My worry is that if I rely too
> heavily on those utilities, I'll end up using them to create items I
> could easily make using CSG in POV-Ray.

CSG with the "pure" primitives is a very engaging intellectual puzzle. 
If I worry about anything, it is more likely that I get sidetracked with 
CSG improvisations when there is so much else to learn.  But really 
neither of us is getting anything done while we are worrying so much.

I tend to view CSG as being to CG as like classic burin engraving is to 
intaglio.  It can produce results of unparalleled beauty, that stem 
directly from the precision, discipline, needed to work with it, and a 
severe vision that can exploit certain stylizations it imposes.

> 
> 	I like programming, and I like math. I'm also much below average when
> it comes to drawing (by hand). Raytracing was my first experience where
> I could make images I liked (even using the computer). I like the whole
> "setup" of raytracing. I like to be able to build each object at a time,
> placed at the origin, at some unit scale, and then do the necessary
> transformations when I'm putting it altogether.

Then I guess you have found a home. :)


> 
> 	I haven't worked too hard with other software. They're a bit less
> intuitive to me, perhaps because of my general inability to draw. JPatch
> is easy to use, though. It's just that I keep struggling with issues
> such as when I export to POV-Ray, the item I created is not centered,
> not to the right scale, etc. Fixing that is a pain. I'm sure
> JPatch/other software could remedy this problem easily, but I don't know
> how.

I am sure you don't need me to tell you this, but that is supposed to be 
the appeal of integrated solutions. That you can avoid those problems. 
When you use an eclectic, best of breed approach, involving a mix of 
programs, you do have to assemble a consistent workflow and maintain 
certain disciplines of nomenclature, file storage, and standards for 
passing deliverables.  Else you *will* go crazy.


> 
> 	I looked at Blender and it seemed like quite a bit to bite on. I don't
> really have much time, so if I were to learn to use a utility, it'd have
> to be something I can just fiddle with 1-2 hours a week, and remember
> the salient details that I learned after a whole week has gone by. I'm
> not sure that's doable with Blender if you're a beginner.
> 
> 	Haven't tried Wings3D.

It's all about locating points correctly in space, ie, the vertices that 
will describe he surface you want.  It doesn't matter what tool you use 
if you can't solve the puzzle of where the points need to be.  By the 
same argumen,t you might as well use the modeller you like.  I use 
Wings.  Silo also has its fans among some very talented people here.  It 
would be my next choice, probably.


> 
> 	I use Linux, and that in itself is a constraint.

I know a few Linux users here are using Wings.

> 
> 	Is there any site where all the patterns are explained in detail (i.e.
> shown). I'm thinking of something along the lines of:
> 
> http://www-public.tu-bs.de:8080/~y0013390/pov/cr_metric.html

I think someone actually tried to make an menu insert file like that.

> 
> 	Where the pattern is "shown" in detail for various parameters. That
> would be immensely helpful. A lot of the patterns in the documentation
> are described mathematically, but I think images will make it easier to
> see the effect of the math and various parameters.

There really are too many parameters I think.  But there was an effort 
going on to explore some of this kind of atlasing of textures in the pov 
wiki.  That  effort takes the approach of an atlas of possibilities 
categorized under real world effects like metals, bark, leather, etc. 
It is a thorny problem, however one approaches it, because the basic 
issue is one of "-ishness"  There is no "bark" texture, there are just 
effects that can produce a "barkish" look in under certain situations.

Post a reply to this message

> My real question is, "Should I learn how to use any external software
> like JPatch to assist me in drawing my objects?". I've always assumed
> that this was a bad idea for beginners, but is it really?

We should treat it like School.  Newbies should be ostracised and bullied, 
and especially ridiculed by they use any tools.

SDL for ever!

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter wrote:
> I am sure you don't need me to tell you this, but that is supposed to be
> the appeal of integrated solutions. That you can avoid those problems.
> When you use an eclectic, best of breed approach, involving a mix of
> programs, you do have to assemble a consistent workflow and maintain
> certain disciplines of nomenclature, file storage, and standards for
> passing deliverables.  Else you *will* go crazy.

	As I expected.

	Will write to you from the asylum, when I get there.<G>

>>     I use Linux, and that in itself is a constraint.
> 
> I know a few Linux users here are using Wings.

	Yes - I know it's available on Linux. My point was that in terms of
free software, I think there's more related to POV-Ray on Windows than
on Linux (such as Moray).

>>     Is there any site where all the patterns are explained in detail
>> (i.e.
>> shown). I'm thinking of something along the lines of:
>>
>> http://www-public.tu-bs.de:8080/~y0013390/pov/cr_metric.html
> 
> 
> I think someone actually tried to make an menu insert file like that.

	Well, the Windows version does have something - limited compared to
what I want, though. If anyone knows of any scripts I could just run on
my Linux box to do this, that would be great.

	Or else I guess I'll give it a shot.

> There really are too many parameters I think.  But there was an effort
> going on to explore some of this kind of atlasing of textures in the pov
> wiki.  That  effort takes the approach of an atlas of possibilities
> categorized under real world effects like metals, bark, leather, etc. It
> is a thorny problem, however one approaches it, because the basic issue
> is one of "-ishness"  There is no "bark" texture, there are just effects
> that can produce a "barkish" look in under certain situations.

	I can see the problem there. However, I did not intend to have an index
of textures whose aim is to look like something recognizable (as in the
bark example you provided). Just the shape of the texture. Let the
viewer figure out if it's useful for the bark/whatever.

	I suppose there are two many parameters. But surely there should be
some way to make sense of the standard patterns provided in the SDL
other than just the description in the docs.

-- 
"Carpe Dentiem ... Seize the teeth!"


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:

> 	I suppose there are two many parameters. But surely there should be
> some way to make sense of the standard patterns provided in the SDL
> other than just the description in the docs.
> 

Yes I am haunted by the sense that the available patterns reflect a 
collection of archetypes.  And that these archetypes derive from the 
mathematical techniques used to generate them.  And that, therefore, 
they possess distinguishing structural properties, that if understood, 
would aid in an intelligent application of them.  Some, for instance, 
seem to be a nested or fractal sort of thing, others more linearly 
repeated.

If such internal structure cannot be made understandable, perhaps, one 
wonders, a descriptive set of properties, relevent to texturing, might 
be cataloged. For instance some subset of patterns are what I call 
"omni-directional" meaning I can apply them to a surface of any shape 
and they will seem to "wrap" to the surface.  Their scaling properties 
might distinguish different patterns.

It might be that the best way to "map" this would be a kind of "best 
practices" hybred of the top down, bottom up approaches.  Like, we can 
group the patterns into these structural families, we can also group 
them into families exhibiting these common properties, and use that as a 
basis for a sort of guide. ie. "Do you want to do natural structures 
such as clouds?  A pattern from this family is the best bet because it 
has such and such a structure and it exhibits these useful properties." 
  The hope would be not that you index how to make clouds, but rather 
that you give a heuristic example of how to think about the patterns and 
their possible application.

Post a reply to this message