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