 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] daylongraphics com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker wrote in message <370cb1b6.0@news.povray.org>...
>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.
I stand corrected. It's been my impression that
WinPOV was generally better supported than LinuxPOV,
and I tend to subconsciously lump all other
OSes into the minority group with Linux.
Ray
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ray Gardener wrote:
>
> 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
Hi Ray,
I really had not intended to imply that Leveller graudate to a fully
integrated rendering package. The section you quoted above was a poorly
worded suggestion of options available to your current design challenge.
The UV mapping function takes u and v coordinates and uses them to map
a texture to that location. Since Leveller knows the height value for
every pixel in the image it produces if should be possible to extract
that data and write it to the format used in the UV patch. This would
allow you very precise control of texture placement on any surface of
the topography independent of slope or height. How one would control
color, area selection, and optimization is left to the programmer to
figure out. I was mearly helping you explore the possiblities available
with currently available Pov processes and related software.
It may even be a poor suggetion but I thought I should at least
clarify the rational for having made the suggestion in the first place.
Regards,
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote in message <370CF87F.D0C5D314@pacbell.net>...
>
> I really had not intended to imply that Leveller graudate to a fully
>integrated rendering package. The section you quoted above was a poorly
>worded suggestion of options available to your current design challenge.
>
> [useful stuff snipped]
Understood. It's just that for every newsgroup poster,
there's way more lurkers, and I figured it would be
good timing to explain how the vision thing was working
out. A lot of users desire improved rendering, and
this was a handy way to let them know what's being
planned, and the rationale behind it.
Hopefully I can start doing IRTC entries in time
for Leveller's first birthday (May 1/99, or close to that).
:)
Ray
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
