>Nathan Kopp:

>Somebody should design the following:  the "POV Plugin Dynamic Library",
>or PPDL for short.  The development kit would consist of a modified GCC
>which compiles POV shaders (or other plugins) to a PPDL format.  This
>PPDL could include... [snip]

Sounds good to me. As least you're being
proactive and trying for a solution.

I suspect that most developers will opt to
build 'partial' plug-ins that only support
the two or three favorite platforms, but
that pretty much mirrors POV -- WinPOV
has the nicest GUI and latest builds, etc.


>Of course, binary plugins like this would be susceptible to trojans and
>viruses.  :-(


True, but that's always the case with
any binary, even builds of POV. We just
have to download from trusted sources
like we always do. If we mandate that
the source has to be provided, then
security freaks can always build their
own local binary of a plug-in.


>Ambitious, huh?  Has anyone done anything like this before?


Ambitious, yes. Original? I don't know.
But if the end goal is reached, you'll
get my vote for the Nobel Prize for
POV programming. Or the 'Most Judicious
Use of Plug-ins in a POV-Ray Script'
category at the Oscars. :)

Ray

Post a reply to this message

In article <370c283f.1@news.povray.org> , "Ray Gardener" 
<ray### [at] daylongraphicscom> wrote:

> I suspect that most developers will opt to
> build 'partial' plug-ins that only support
> the two or three favorite platforms, but
> that pretty much mirrors POV -- WinPOV
> has the nicest GUI and latest builds, etc.

"WinPOV has the nicest GUI and latest builds", aha (???)...
"only support the two or three [...] platforms", great idea (irony!)...


    Thorsten


PS: Did I miss the last ten years or so and it is 2009???  ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Spider wrote in message <370BC0F6.55C32441@bahnhof.se>...
>Hey now...
>Quake3arena will be based on a JIT compiler..
>it will be using one binary for the server part, and one for client part
>computing(not gfx).


Ooo... Quake on a JIT. Now I'll be able to
make detailed observations on the gameplay
to others.

"See that rocket? In ten seconds it will
hit that wall. But before it does, notice
the subtle use of rust and dirt used
to texture the fuselage..." :)

Ray

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote in message <37097246.CEB5F0E3@pacbell.net>...
>
>  You seem to have pretty good control of what is
>happening where and at what level in Leveller and the two might find some
>sort of harmonious exsistance.


Well, I was all set to add raytracing to Leveller,
but then I thought, the world doesn't need Yet
Another Renderer. Before I go down that road,
due dilegence requires that I look into seeing
what POV-Ray can do (or be made to do). Otherwise,
there's a danger of adding rendering features
specific to Leveller, and then it would have to
render all sorts of other primitives in order
to make full scenes work. And I'd have to constantly
keep upgrading the renderer to keep it current.
With a full-time staff, maybe, but not the way
things are now.

And people have a big investment in POV -- it's
better to leverage that. We're almost at the
point where $50-$100 gets you into some serious
kick-ass landscape modelling/rendering, without
being overly difficult for the average user.
When the Superpatch is integrated into POV 3.5,
and Leveller starts automating the script
generation for the new texture options more,
I think we're going to see some amazing stuff,
without burning me out production-wise. Or
someone else could automate the scripts, too.

Ray

Post a reply to this message

>"WinPOV has the nicest GUI and latest builds", aha (???)...
>"only support the two or three [...] platforms", great idea (irony!)...


It is ironic, yes. But I think the idea behind
having stringent multi-platform support is not
so that all those platforms have the software,
but that if someone wants to do the port, it's
nice to know that they have that option at
any time, and that the process won't involve
major gnashing of teeth. It's more a question of keeping
the options open than of actual availability.

Ray

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 7 Apr 1999 22:18:22 -0700, Ray Gardener <ray### [at] daylongraphicscom> wrote:
>>"WinPOV has the nicest GUI and latest builds", aha (???)...
>>"only support the two or three [...] platforms", great idea (irony!)...
>
>
>It is ironic, yes. But I think the idea behind
>having stringent multi-platform support is not
>so that all those platforms have the software,
[...]

You seem to have missed the point, Ray.  Thorsten was obliquely commenting
that the Mac has a nicer GUI, and both Mac and DOS usually have the latest 
builds before Windows.  For a current illustration, go get the 3.1e source 
for DOS.  Now go get the 3.1e source for Windows.

Post a reply to this message

Ron Parker wrote:
> 
> Okay, so I have this binary file with lots of different formats in it.
> I've just allocated a block of memory and read the appropriate code
> into it, relocated addresses where necessary, and i'm ready to run it.
> Now where did I put that library routine that lets me mark a data page
> (or pages) as executable?  I mean, I know how to do it under WinNT, but
> that's a Win32 API call.  I'm looking for something cross-platform.

Ok, so there are a lot of issues to be worked out.  But I don't think it
would be impossible (just difficult maybe).

But if marking the code to be executable is the only non-cross-platform
thing, then I think that would be acceptable.  Unfortunately, I think
that there will be more complicated issues.

-Nathan

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 08 Apr 1999 09:37:20 -0400, Nathan Kopp <Nat### [at] Koppcom> wrote:
>Ron Parker wrote:
>> 
>> Okay, so I have this binary file with lots of different formats in it.
>> I've just allocated a block of memory and read the appropriate code
>> into it, relocated addresses where necessary, and i'm ready to run it.
>> Now where did I put that library routine that lets me mark a data page
>> (or pages) as executable?  I mean, I know how to do it under WinNT, but
>> that's a Win32 API call.  I'm looking for something cross-platform.
>
>Ok, so there are a lot of issues to be worked out.  But I don't think it
>would be impossible (just difficult maybe).

Agreed.  I still think it's a good idea.

>But if marking the code to be executable is the only non-cross-platform
>thing, then I think that would be acceptable.  Unfortunately, I think
>that there will be more complicated issues.

Probably.  Still, it's an idea that I've tossed around myself.  Well, not
the fat-binary part of it, but the 'dynamic loading on platforms that
don't support it' part.  Maybe when the superpatch is done (ha!) I'll take 
some time to do a proof-of-concept for the platforms I have access to (which 
are unfortunately both X86 platforms, unless you count that poor old junker 
Amiga in the corner, the one that sometimes boots.)  I'd still be interested
in seeing (A) how much code bloat it would really add to integrate Kaffe with
POV, and (B) how much slower a pattern written in Java would be than the 
equivalent pattern patched directly into POV.  Function-based textures in
the isosurface patch aren't too slow, and they're not compiled (unless you
add a DLL.)

Post a reply to this message

<No Comment>

Post a reply to this message

In article <370cb1b6.0@news.povray.org> , par### [at] my-dejanewscom (Ron 
Parker) wrote:
>>"WinPOV has the nicest GUI and latest builds", aha (???)...
>
> You seem to have missed the point, Ray.  Thorsten was obliquely commenting
> that the Mac has a nicer GUI, and both Mac and DOS usually have the latest
> builds before Windows.  For a current illustration, go get the 3.1e source
> for DOS.  Now go get the 3.1e source for Windows.

Yes, you got my first point :-)


    Thorsten

Post a reply to this message