Anthony D. Baye <Sha### [at] spamnomorehotmailcom> wrote:
> the problem I see with this is that not all of us are good at this sort of
> thing. If this is the direction povray were to go, then I think it would be
> better to have a plugin system so that, rather than compiling dozens of
> unofficial versions of POVRay, we could have One Ring to Rule Them All, and
> extra functionality -- even overriding functionality -- could be handled via the
> plugin system.
My suggestion had nothing to do with compiling POV-Ray, or having a plugin
system. It was about enhancing the current scene decription language with
features that are closer to shaders in design.
Current user-defined functions are already a step in that direction.
My suggestion was to expand that idea and make it usable in the actual
rendering (in different parts of it.)
And you wouldn't need to know how to use it, or the full language.
Those who would know, could make easy-to-use library functions that
you can use (in the same way as the current include system works.)
This has many advantages. For instance, if you needed a functionality
that's similar to what somebody else has done, you can just take that
"shader" of theirs and modify it a bit to suit your needs. No need to
recompile POV-Ray or use a complex "plug-in" system. Just write some
SDL and that's it.
Post a reply to this message