OK, to try this out, I'll be collecting, for a period of one week, 
submissions for office supplies.  Anyone can make a submission, or 
multiple submissions.  There are only a few guidelines I'll stipulate:

1) Email me your submissions, rather than spamming the NG with binaries.

2) Try to use a macro parameter to define the size of your object.  If 
you cannot, then please use a variable named 'meter', and place the 
following at the beginning of your code:

#ifndef(meter)
#declare meter = 1.0;
#end

Then, create all your objects based on this variable.

3) It is assumed that all submissions are given with permission to post 
them in the POV-Ray Library.  It is also assumed that I am being given 
permission to be the one posting them there.  It is also assumed that 
you would like credit for your work, so I will ensure that the final 
upload contains credits for all contributors.

4) Try to make objects that would require more than a few minutes of 
mucking about in SDL to replicate.  The point is to have quality 
objects.  If you can't make a whole set of quality objects, just make 
one or two - that's why we're doing this as a group.

Any other questions or suggestions, post them here.  After next Sunday, 
I'll package all the contributions together and upload them.

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> OK, to try this out, I'll be collecting, for a period of one week,
> submissions for office supplies.

fine enough.  So it closes next monday?  oh, sunday...

> 1) Email me your submissions, rather than spamming the NG with binaries.

how about a standard title?  "Povray Object Collection:  office supplies"?

> 2) Try to use a macro parameter to define the size of your object.  If
> you cannot, then please use a variable named 'meter', and place the
> following at the beginning of your code:
>
> #ifndef(meter)
> #declare meter = 1.0;
> #end

hmm, how about abbrevs?  m is traditional for meter, cm for centimeter etc.  I'd
very much like to spell <1.2,.86,.2>*m rather than <1.2,.86,.2>*meter or
centimeter...  what about yankees and their weird measure units?

> 4) Try to make objects that would require more than a few minutes of
> mucking about in SDL to replicate.  The point is to have quality
> objects.  If you can't make a whole set of quality objects, just make
> one or two - that's why we're doing this as a group.

that sounds great!  I'm guessing you're expecting pure CSG, no meshes?

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> OK, to try this out, I'll be collecting, for a period of one week, 

  Do you think that's enough?

> 2) Try to use a macro parameter to define the size of your object.  If 
> you cannot, then please use a variable named 'meter', and place the 
> following at the beginning of your code:

> #ifndef(meter)
> #declare meter = 1.0;
> #end

> Then, create all your objects based on this variable.

  I would like to suggest what I suggested in the other post:

  If possible, try to make the different dimensions of the object
configurable. For example, if you are making a table, try to make
it possible to define either the width and depth or the "aspect
ratio" of the tabletop, the length of the table legs, etc. instead
of just creating a fixed model. In some cases it may be feasible to
put some limits on the given measures.

  The most flexible way to do this is to put something like this in
the include file:

#ifndef Someid_Table_Leg_Length
  #declare Someid_Table_Leg_Length = 5;
#end

  Or, alternatively:

#local Table_Leg_Length = 5;
#ifdef Someid_Table_Leg_Length_Factor
  #local Table_Leg_Length = Table_Leg_Length * Someid_Table_Leg_Length_Factor;
#end

  This way people can either use your #include with its default settings,
or they can fine-tune some settings like:

#declare Someid_Table_Leg_Length_Factor = 1.2;
#include "theinclude.inc"

  It would also be nice to be able to configure other things about the
object in a similar way. For example, if you are making a lamp, it should
be possible to tell if the lamp is on or off, and its brightness/color,
for example like:

#declare Someid_Lamp_Light = on;
#declare Someid_Lamp_Light_Color = <1.2, 1, .6>;
#declare Someid_Lamp_Light_Fade_Distance = 4;
#include "thelamp.inc"

  Likewise for other similar things, eg. object which can be open or close,
objects which can have parts which are rotated (ie. it should be possible
to define the rotation angle for that part), etc.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>> OK, to try this out, I'll be collecting, for a period of one week,
>> submissions for office supplies.
> 
> fine enough.  So it closes next monday?  oh, sunday...
> 
>> 1) Email me your submissions, rather than spamming the NG with binaries.
> 
> how about a standard title?  "Povray Object Collection:  office supplies"?

As long as its emailed to me, I'll see it.  I haven't had a problem with 
my spam filters catching legitimate mail.  Then, I'll composite them 
into a single package to be uploaded.

>> 2) Try to use a macro parameter to define the size of your object.  If
>> you cannot, then please use a variable named 'meter', and place the
>> following at the beginning of your code:
>>
>> #ifndef(meter)
>> #declare meter = 1.0;
>> #end
> 
> hmm, how about abbrevs?  m is traditional for meter, cm for centimeter etc.  I'd
> very much like to spell <1.2,.86,.2>*m rather than <1.2,.86,.2>*meter or
> centimeter...  what about yankees and their weird measure units?

Try to use macro parameters.  If you can't, then we should use a 
standard sizing system.  Rather than argue about it here, I'd recommend 
just using the above.

If you use parameters, however, then the above is unnecessary.

>> 4) Try to make objects that would require more than a few minutes of
>> mucking about in SDL to replicate.  The point is to have quality
>> objects.  If you can't make a whole set of quality objects, just make
>> one or two - that's why we're doing this as a group.
> 
> that sounds great!  I'm guessing you're expecting pure CSG, no meshes?

That's the idea, of course.

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>> OK, to try this out, I'll be collecting, for a period of one week, 
> 
>   Do you think that's enough?

For office supplies?  Sure.  I don't expect everyone to push out a dozen 
objects or so; one per person should be enough, and the given time frame 
is fine for that.

>> 2) Try to use a macro parameter to define the size of your object.  If 

<snip>

>   I would like to suggest what I suggested in the other post:
> 
>   If possible, try to make the different dimensions of the object
> configurable. For example, if you are making a table, try to make

Exactly.  If they can't do that, then using a standard sizing system is 
best.  I didn't want to argue about a sizing system, so I kept it simple.

Of course, macro or defined parameters are best :)

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> 1) Email me your submissions, rather than spamming the NG with binaries.

Although it probably wouldn't hurt to post here if you're working on 
something.

Personally, I've been working on a ball point pen, and I plan on doing a 
handheld (ie small) stapler, as well as a 3 hole punch.

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message 
news:4794efd1@news.povray.org...
> nemesis wrote:
>> that sounds great!  I'm guessing you're expecting pure CSG, no meshes?
>
> That's the idea, of course.

     In this day and age, that's a real shame.

       ~Steve~



>
> -- 
> ...Ben Chambers
> www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:
> "Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message 
> news:4794efd1@news.povray.org...
> 
>>nemesis wrote:
>>
>>>that sounds great!  I'm guessing you're expecting pure CSG, no meshes?
>>
>>That's the idea, of course.
> 
> 
>      In this day and age, that's a real shame.
> 
>        ~Steve~
> 
> 
Ohhh!  Glad that got said before I put too much time in.  That should be 
made clearer on the web page.

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message 
news:479516b0$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:

>>      In this day and age, that's a real shame.


> Ohhh!  Glad that got said before I put too much time in.  That should be 
> made clearer on the web page.

    Heh, well, I can't think of anything better than mixing a good mesh 
modeler with PoV. For me at least, it = perfect.  :)

      ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:
> "Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message 
> news:4794efd1@news.povray.org...
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> that sounds great!  I'm guessing you're expecting pure CSG, no meshes?
>> That's the idea, of course.
> 
>      In this day and age, that's a real shame.
> 
>        ~Steve~

Don't get me wrong - there's no way I'd turn away a good model if one 
got submitted.  I just prefer CSG for its flexibility (through macros 
and / or parameters), compactness, and the fact that it uses real curves.

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:
> "Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message 
> news:479516b0$1@news.povray.org...
> 
>>St. wrote:
> 
> 
>>>     In this day and age, that's a real shame.
> 
> 
> 
>>Ohhh!  Glad that got said before I put too much time in.  That should be 
>>made clearer on the web page.
> 
> 
>     Heh, well, I can't think of anything better than mixing a good mesh 
> modeler with PoV. For me at least, it = perfect.  :)
> 
>       ~Steve~
> 
> 
> 
Your postings on p.b.images have made that pretty clear.  Me, I can 
swing either way, but I want to be the one who decides.

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message 
news:47953247$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>> "Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message 
>> news:479516b0$1@news.povray.org...
>>
>>>St. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>     In this day and age, that's a real shame.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Ohhh!  Glad that got said before I put too much time in.  That should be 
>>>made clearer on the web page.
>>
>>
>>     Heh, well, I can't think of anything better than mixing a good mesh 
>> modeler with PoV. For me at least, it = perfect.  :)
>>
>>       ~Steve~
>>
>>
>>
> Your postings on p.b.images have made that pretty clear.  Me, I can swing 
> either way, but I want to be the one who decides.

    And of course, that's the correct way to tackle it Jim. I think we all 
made decisions over the years about how we would 'refine' our workflow using 
PoV, and I think I've found my path. But, I've been tampering with the new 
Crysis game editor recently, and I'm like 'painting' different layers of 
rock textures on a heightfield mountain, and thinking; "Wow, if only I could 
do this in PoV". If PoV was like this, it would seriously rule. :) Well, it 
seriously rules anyway, but you know what I mean. This isn't a complaint, 
just a thought.

     ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message 
news:47952fdf$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>> "Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message 
>> news:4794efd1@news.povray.org...
>>> nemesis wrote:
>>>> that sounds great!  I'm guessing you're expecting pure CSG, no meshes?
>>> That's the idea, of course.
>>
>>      In this day and age, that's a real shame.
>>
>>        ~Steve~
>
> Don't get me wrong - there's no way I'd turn away a good model if one got 
> submitted.  I just prefer CSG for its flexibility (through macros and / or 
> parameters), compactness, and the fact that it uses real curves.

    Hmm, well, true. It's just me though, I feel restricted when I can offer 
so much with an .obj mesh. After what now, six, seven years(?) using PoV, 
I'll never be able to handle CSG properly, it's just not my thing. I admire 
the guys that can though, no doubt about that.

     ~Steve~


>
> -- 
> ...Ben Chambers
> www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> "Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
> news:47952fdf$1@news.povray.org...
> > St. wrote:
> >> "Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
> >> news:4794efd1@news.povray.org...
> >>> nemesis wrote:
> >>>> that sounds great!  I'm guessing you're expecting pure CSG, no meshes?
> >>> That's the idea, of course.
> >>
> >>      In this day and age, that's a real shame.
> >>
> >>        ~Steve~
> >
> > Don't get me wrong - there's no way I'd turn away a good model if one got
> > submitted.  I just prefer CSG for its flexibility (through macros and / or
> > parameters), compactness, and the fact that it uses real curves.
>
>     Hmm, well, true. It's just me though, I feel restricted when I can offer
> so much with an .obj mesh. After what now, six, seven years(?) using PoV,
> I'll never be able to handle CSG properly, it's just not my thing. I admire
> the guys that can though, no doubt about that.
>
>      ~Steve~
>
>
> >
> > --
> > ...Ben Chambers
> > www.pacificwebguy.com

Nothing wrong with either CSG or meshes I think.  The advantage of CSG is the
making of parameterable(?) objects, e.g. a table where you can define the
height, widht and length (which aren't dependent on just straight scale
factors).  Of course you can try to hand-code a mesh that has some variable
adjustment (I've done a few).  You can also wrap meshes in a macro that can
carry additional simple parameters like scaling and textures.
I tend to use a lot of CSG when modelling, mainly because I don't want to take
the time to learn a modeller, but also for the parameterability(?).  For
instance, the smurf house I posted a while back is pure CSG and has a number of
variables that I can change on the fly to adjust it's look.
I do occasionally use meshes as well though, either premade meshes by others or
for example, meshes made from TopMod.
I guess after all this, I'll have to submit an object or two now...

-tgq

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:
>     Hmm, well, true. It's just me though, I feel restricted when I can offer 
> so much with an .obj mesh. After what now, six, seven years(?) using PoV, 
> I'll never be able to handle CSG properly, it's just not my thing. I admire 
> the guys that can though, no doubt about that.

Has a macro been written to handle .obj files?  I would probably have to 
draw a line on files that can't be handled w/o running them through a 
converter (so at least put in in a mesh2 or something).

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Trevor G Quayle wrote:
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> 
>>"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
>>news:47952fdf$1@news.povray.org...
>>
>>>St. wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
>>>>news:4794efd1@news.povray.org...
>>>>
>>>>>nemesis wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>that sounds great!  I'm guessing you're expecting pure CSG, no meshes?
>>>>>
>>>>>That's the idea, of course.
>>>>
>>>>     In this day and age, that's a real shame.
>>>>
>>>>       ~Steve~
>>>
>>>Don't get me wrong - there's no way I'd turn away a good model if one got
>>>submitted.  I just prefer CSG for its flexibility (through macros and / or
>>>parameters), compactness, and the fact that it uses real curves.
>>
>>    Hmm, well, true. It's just me though, I feel restricted when I can offer
>>so much with an .obj mesh. After what now, six, seven years(?) using PoV,
>>I'll never be able to handle CSG properly, it's just not my thing. I admire
>>the guys that can though, no doubt about that.
>>
>>     ~Steve~
>>
>>
>>
>>>--
>>>...Ben Chambers
>>>www.pacificwebguy.com
> 
> 
> Nothing wrong with either CSG or meshes I think.  The advantage of CSG is the
> making of parameterable(?) objects, e.g. a table where you can define the
> height, widht and length (which aren't dependent on just straight scale
> factors).  Of course you can try to hand-code a mesh that has some variable
> adjustment (I've done a few).  You can also wrap meshes in a macro that can
> carry additional simple parameters like scaling and textures.
> I tend to use a lot of CSG when modelling, mainly because I don't want to take
> the time to learn a modeller, but also for the parameterability(?).  For
> instance, the smurf house I posted a while back is pure CSG and has a number of
> variables that I can change on the fly to adjust it's look.
> I do occasionally use meshes as well though, either premade meshes by others or
> for example, meshes made from TopMod.
> I guess after all this, I'll have to submit an object or two now...
> 
> -tgq
> 
> 
Sure but with some objects there would be diminishing gain from being 
parametrized, versus the work needed to do it.  I was contemplating a 
desk fan for instance.  The design is what it is. And it involves a 
number of cast metal housings with complex curves, smooth chamfers and 
such. Very difficult to handle in csg without a foregiving attitude. 
Meanwhile, you parametrize a few things, say to lengthen or widen the 
base, but to try and code something like a fan such that one design 
could be morphed into another design by adjusting parameters seems like 
an exercise in cleverness for its own sake with little practical payoff. 
Such a design is an integrated thing, not just a matter of making table 
legs longer to fit a need. Better to simply post a file of the 
unsmoothed mesh in a common format.  It can be imported into a modeller 
and the base made taller or wider just as easily that way, (would work 
for table legs too, btw,) or whole parts of the design concept could be 
morphed by a subsequent artist in ways the original contributor might 
never predict.

Now, on the other hand, I was also contemplating oak file cabinets.  Now 
there I could see a csg solution that could, for instance, allow for 
different matrixes of drawers, anything from a cabinet for 3x5 file 
cards to one for large flat maps, all from the same macro.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> Sure but with some objects there would be diminishing gain from being
> parametrized, versus the work needed to do it.  I was contemplating a
> desk fan for instance.  The design is what it is. And it involves a
> number of cast metal housings with complex curves, smooth chamfers and
> such. Very difficult to handle in csg without a foregiving attitude.
> Meanwhile, you parametrize a few things, say to lengthen or widen the
> base, but to try and code something like a fan such that one design
> could be morphed into another design by adjusting parameters seems like
> an exercise in cleverness for its own sake with little practical payoff.
> Such a design is an integrated thing, not just a matter of making table
> legs longer to fit a need. Better to simply post a file of the
> unsmoothed mesh in a common format.  It can be imported into a modeller
> and the base made taller or wider just as easily that way, (would work
> for table legs too, btw,) or whole parts of the design concept could be
> morphed by a subsequent artist in ways the original contributor might
> never predict.
>
> Now, on the other hand, I was also contemplating oak file cabinets.  Now
> there I could see a csg solution that could, for instance, allow for
> different matrixes of drawers, anything from a cabinet for 3x5 file
> cards to one for large flat maps, all from the same macro.

As I said, I don't think there is anything wrong with adding meshes, you could
even combine a mesh and CSG for certain purposes, or multiple meshes.  Think
about the fan idea: make the housing, base and fan blade from seperate meshes,
they could then be combined in a macro with appropriate variables to control
the fan spin and housing oscillation for specific scenes, motion blur,
animation etc., things that wouldn't be simple with a single mesh object.

-tgq

Post a reply to this message

Trevor G Quayle wrote:
> Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> 
>>Sure but with some objects there would be diminishing gain from being
>>parametrized, versus the work needed to do it.  I was contemplating a
>>desk fan for instance.  The design is what it is. And it involves a
>>number of cast metal housings with complex curves, smooth chamfers and
>>such. Very difficult to handle in csg without a foregiving attitude.
>>Meanwhile, you parametrize a few things, say to lengthen or widen the
>>base, but to try and code something like a fan such that one design
>>could be morphed into another design by adjusting parameters seems like
>>an exercise in cleverness for its own sake with little practical payoff.
>>Such a design is an integrated thing, not just a matter of making table
>>legs longer to fit a need. Better to simply post a file of the
>>unsmoothed mesh in a common format.  It can be imported into a modeller
>>and the base made taller or wider just as easily that way, (would work
>>for table legs too, btw,) or whole parts of the design concept could be
>>morphed by a subsequent artist in ways the original contributor might
>>never predict.
>>
>>Now, on the other hand, I was also contemplating oak file cabinets.  Now
>>there I could see a csg solution that could, for instance, allow for
>>different matrixes of drawers, anything from a cabinet for 3x5 file
>>cards to one for large flat maps, all from the same macro.
> 
> 
> As I said, I don't think there is anything wrong with adding meshes, you could
> even combine a mesh and CSG for certain purposes, or multiple meshes.  Think
> about the fan idea: make the housing, base and fan blade from seperate meshes,
> they could then be combined in a macro with appropriate variables to control
> the fan spin and housing oscillation for specific scenes, motion blur,
> animation etc., things that wouldn't be simple with a single mesh object.
> 
> -tgq
> 
> 
Yes, nice idea, I'll admit I hadn't thought of animation uses.  I would 
  have broken up the model into separate mesh objects anyway for ease of 
texturing among other reasons.  The texture list in mesh2 objects is 
great but I often find that for flexibility purposes I like to keep one 
texture per object whenever possible. I think it is necessary too if you 
want to apply materials to a mesh2 object? Anyway long ago I adopted it 
as a standard.

Post a reply to this message

"Trevor G Quayle" <Tin### [at] hotmailcom> a écrit dans le message de 
news: web.479654af21a87b7ec150d4c10@news.povray.org...
> As I said, I don't think there is anything wrong with adding meshes, you 
> could
> even combine a mesh and CSG for certain purposes, or multiple meshes. 
> Think
> about the fan idea: make the housing, base and fan blade from seperate 
> meshes,
> they could then be combined in a macro with appropriate variables to 
> control
> the fan spin and housing oscillation for specific scenes, motion blur,
> animation etc., things that wouldn't be simple with a single mesh object.
>
> -tgq


For what it's worth, here's an example of posable mesh in POV-Ray.
http://www.oyonale.com/modeles.php?lang=en&page=55
The demo file contains a small macro that can be used to rotate and animate 
the legs. I just had to copy the coordinates of the origin point (center of 
rotation) for each leg part from the original model and then reorganise the 
leg's hierarchy in POV-Ray.

G.

-- 
*****************************
http://www.oyonale.com
*****************************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

OK, after one week, I've had a submission from one person.

Unfortunately, I was hoping for more than this :(

So, I have a couple of questions:

1) Who would participate if given more time?
1b) How much more time would you realistically ask for?

and,

2) Who would participate with a different subject?
2b) What subjects would interest you?

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Good way to get more interest: post to povray.news-submissions.

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> OK, after one week, I've had a submission from one person.

I was actually wishing to participate.  But I only really have time for 
elaborate povraying during weekends.  And unfortunately, I lost my CPU 
time for the whole weekend in a stupid render... :P

> 1b) How much more time would you realistically ask for?

how about 2 weekends?

> 2b) What subjects would interest you?

Office items is cool enough.  I'm more of an interior spaces guy than a 
naturalist or landscape one...

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> OK, after one week, I've had a submission from one person.
>
> Unfortunately, I was hoping for more than this :(

I would expect the subject restriction is artificially limiting your potential
pool of objects. Looking through p.b.i there's a lot of diversity evident in
what people choose to work on, so maybe choosing one particular subject
(whatever it happens to be) would result in low submissions.

If you want to provide focus, maybe have some sort of target number of objects
to be submitted, or something?

Or if you want to stick with the restricted subject, I noticed that some of the
large collaboration images seem to do well, at least for a while. Providing an
ongoing render of an office produced with submitted objects might work. You
could start out with placeholder boxes everywhere and replace them with real
objects as submissions trickled in. An attractive enough render output (a bit
of radiosity, bit of blur and bouncy specular) and it might work to encourage.
Use the end result as the category facing image for office supplies, or
whatever.

Tom

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> OK, after one week, I've had a submission from one person.
> 
> Unfortunately, I was hoping for more than this :(
> 
> So, I have a couple of questions:
> 
> 1) Who would participate if given more time?
> 1b) How much more time would you realistically ask for?
> 
> and,
> 
> 2) Who would participate with a different subject?
> 2b) What subjects would interest you?
> 
I am working on something but it takes awhile in POV, especially when 
trying to answer to the constraints of
a) coming up with something even worth doing, ie something more than a 
model someone could knock off on their own in a few hours
b) coming up with some sensible 'parametizing' of the model
c) coming up with a bullet-proof implementation that answers to the 
necessary standards set out, but also to the scrutiny of the community here.

So in short, as it stands, the idea I had had is not worth releasing at 
this point.  There are both current bugs in the implemetation I have as 
well as overarching questions about the worth of the models even if I 
did get the bugs out.

I think the subject is just fine, in fact more than just fine, I really 
enjoyed researching the category for ideas.  My own inclination was 
toward more antique office accessories and I was facinated to find sites 
catering to collectors of such things.

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> OK, after one week, I've had a submission from one person.
>
> Unfortunately, I was hoping for more than this :(
>
> So, I have a couple of questions:
>
> 1) Who would participate if given more time?
> 1b) How much more time would you realistically ask for?
>
> and,
>
> 2) Who would participate with a different subject?
> 2b) What subjects would interest you?
>
> --
> ...Ben Chambers
> www.pacificwebguy.com


First of all, thanks for taking the time to answer my question by email. When I
asked it, I really thought that I was going to get a submission in.  It turns
out that MOST of my weekend was spent as a driver-organizer-expediter for a
friend's father's funeral that I thought I would just be visiting briefly.

How much more time?  As near and dear as the members of the POV-Ray community
are to me, I'm afraid that many are nearly as bad as myself when it comes to
working under deadlines. The phrase "open-ended" comes to mind.

As for subject matter... To be honest, MOST other subjects would be more
interesting than "office supplies".  (I wasn't going to say anything since
contributing seemed a far nobler act than griping.) Perhaps it would work
better to make a list of categories available.

Finally, even though you said that you didn't want to clutter up the binaries
folder with submission code, I'm guessing that it WOULD be a good idea to post
example images as they come in because quite a bit of activity is generated
around here as people respond to one another's images with variations and the
like.  I think your project is a good one.  I hope that you won't be
discouraged by the challenges of working with a busy volunteer community.

Best Regards,

Mike C.

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> OK, after one week, I've had a submission from one person.
> 
> Unfortunately, I was hoping for more than this :(
> 
> So, I have a couple of questions:
> 
> 1) Who would participate if given more time?
> 1b) How much more time would you realistically ask for?
> 
> and,
> 
> 2) Who would participate with a different subject?
> 2b) What subjects would interest you?
> 

My plans for this week got derailed by looming deadlines in real life.
Not knowing till last week that I had to finish a paper this week really
killed my free time. When I finish this desk and typewriter models, they
will go up.

How much time? I'm slow. It all depends on if I find the magic
combination that makes an object work. 2 weekends would be better then one.

Topics, hmm. I tend to model things that really won't have a good use
outside. Chainmail macros to generate textures via the orthographic
camera, or fantasy knives for fun and profit. Musical instruments might
be an interesting topic, as would something silly like 'Model your
telephone'.

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> OK, after one week, I've had a submission from one person.
>
> Unfortunately, I was hoping for more than this :(
>
> So, I have a couple of questions:
>
> 1) Who would participate if given more time?
> 1b) How much more time would you realistically ask for?
>
> and,
>
> 2) Who would participate with a different subject?
> 2b) What subjects would interest you?

I'd participate, I didn't see this until after it was over.  My POV time up
until yesterday was used by SCC5 anyhow, but that's done now.

Not sure about time.   Perhaps you should have a couple subjects and package
when you get a certain number of submissions?

Post a reply to this message