 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The cost is NEVER minimal.
The cost is NEVER Minimal!!!
(I had to repeat that. ;-)
Seriously, now, I would NEVER have been raytracing if there were no POV.
Since it is free, there is no comparing to ANYTHING else, no matter how
much better.
And besides, POV is great!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
About 3ds max.
a) You can't speak to the creators by just e-mailing them, now can you?
b) You are obviously loaded with cash, Lance. (Can I have some?)
c) Long live piracy! (Just kidding... why would I use POV if I could get 3ds...
just kidding again, I _can_ get it, but I prefer POV).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>a) You can't speak to the creators by just e-mailing them, now can you?
Yes, I can, for example, if I want to know about the up and coming
features in Shiva (MAX 3) then all I have to do is email Frank DeLise...
He's also got a great website by the way... and he also made the opening
sequences for Lost In Space... :)
>b) You are obviously loaded with cash, Lance. (Can I have some?)
No, I'm not, and no you can't...
>c) Long live piracy! (Just kidding... why would I use POV if I could get
3ds...
>just kidding again, I _can_ get it, but I prefer POV).
Have you ever used MAX R2.5? (don't say you've used R1.2 because it
was TERRIBLE!!!)
--
Lance.
---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Oh no, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to put down POV-Ray!!! I started
in the whole 3D scene with POV-Ray! I LUV IT! :)
I'm just saying that MAX is better for MY use because I'm doing work where I
need to render quickly and see the results as I'm altering something. The
advanced modelling methods like NURBS are also invaluable to me, as are the
post production effects...
All I was saying is that MAX is better for what I'm doing... Not that it's
better for everyone... (hey, I can't see Pixar using it... Nor can I see a
lot of the highend guys using it... they use stuff that costs HEAPS more!!!
For example, Maya costs $US 26,000!!!!!!)
Lance.
---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi all,
I've seen these issue come up a number of times.
I think one issue is the POV language. I remember there was talk about
this a while back regarding a binary scene language for POV and its plusses
and minuses. I believe the official plan was to clean up the current POV
language a bit and make an official syntax guide for it. This would allow
people to build their own scene language (OOP, stack based, whatever) and
then parse that into the POV format.
I think this is a pretty good solution. It maintaints backwards
compatibility (as much as possible) but also allows language extensibility.
There is one big minus, though. It still makes it very difficult to use
POV's internal routines during the scene parsing phase. For example, doing
object intersection tests, etc is still not possible. To acheive these
abilities would require either a very large rewrite of POV or significant
work on a new scene language front end. Since that front end would need to
use all of POV's internal algorithms anyway, I think it makes sense to do it
at the corse, i.e., in POV itself.
So, this brings back up the earlier debate regarding the scene language.
Maybe it is time to create a different POV scene language. One that is very
strictly defined and also has the information retrieval routines (e.g.,
object intersection) that would be so useful. Then someone could put a
"traditional" POV scene language wrapper on top of that for backwards
compatibility.
Another issue is POV engine growth and extensibility. It is certainly
very important to be able to add new features to POV as they become
desireable and feasible (as CPU become faster and faster). How to do useful
plugins is always a difficult question. The biggest issue here being
portability. It is not fair for only some platforms to have the new plugins.
Well, one solution I see to this would be having some interpreted
language in POV to create the plugins. This would then, of course, be very
slow. Another solution is to have a more open development system where
contributions can be rolled into official builds more quickly.
If the development system is opened up then I think that the POV source
code should be made more orderly so that it is easier to add to (I believe
this is planned anyway). Also a good method of evaluating POV patches would
be necessary.
Personally I'm pretty happy with the POV feature set. My biggest desire
is a different scene language that allows retrieving information from the
POV engine during parsing. Of course some of the recent patches are pretty
cool and I think they should be rolled into the official POV distribution
but not too hastily.
One other thought I've had was going back to the interpreted idea
mentioned above. I was wondering if a very small, tightly coded, minimum
feature-set of ray tracing could be written and compiled and from that set
additions are added. I do not know enough about the details of a ray tracer
to say too much more but it seems there are things in POV that need not be
in the core of the program. For example, shouldn't there be a more flexible
way to define objects such that there need not be so many different types?
Yes, yes, I know, this would cause a speed hit on the rendering but I'm
wondering if that could be minimized via the scener parser/compiler.
Similarly, all of the warps, turbulations, media, etc should be able to be
emilimated via a very basic system. Perhaps something that allows flexible
object definitions, flexible light definitions, and flexible texture
definitions, and the camera of course. After all isn't that all we need?
Every pov scene is simply objects with textures, light (maybe with texture),
and the camera (maybe with textures). Even media can just be objects with
textures.
If those 4 things could be broken down into a very basic definition then
everything else could be built on top of that in some scripting language. If
those basics were optimized enough in the main code then perhaps the later
scripting slowness would not be too bad.
Well, sorry for the length. Just some thoughts. Any input from the POV
team (or anyone else)?
--Rainer
----- Original Message -----
From: Eugene Arenhaus <chi### [at] netvision netil>
Newsgroups: povray.general,povray.programming
Sent: 1999?4?8? 21:49
Subject: POV 4 ideology proposal
> Hi.
>
> Here are some thoughts about what POV-Ray 4 could look like.
>
> The POV team is especially welcome to read. :)
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> (`` Email: mailto:chi### [at] netvisionnetil
> (=o \ Web page: http://www.furnation.com/chipmunk
> _ / ,-' ftp://velar.ctrl-c.liu.se/vcl/Artists/Eugene-Arenhaus/
> ( `( )
> ) / ``O "To see a World in a grain of sand,
> '' `,~' And a Heaven in a wild flower,
> \ )) Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand,
> `---`` And Eternity in an hour." (W. Blake)
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I actually have a friend with 2.5. But, I don't know, I just don't like the
interface, never found it friendly. Now, Bryce and Lightwave, that is a nice
interface! You understand immediately how to use them. Too bad I don't have a
couple thousand just lying around...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Actually MAX 3, from what I've seen of it, has a new interface which is more
like Maya... I really don't see the problem with it's current interface
though, I thought it was quite intuitive... but then again, that's me! LOL,
and I'm strange!
I'm not sure now how anyone can really compare MAX to something like LW or
Bryce... because MAX is just so much more advanced!!! (well, OK, that's in
my very bias opinion... ;-)
I must say though it certainly does like hogging resources :)
--
Lance.
---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
Colorblind - http://www.fortunecity.com/skyscraper/parallax/359/colorblind
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
What's so special about Maya, anyway? I mean, what would justify asking
>$20,000 for a piece of software? I've used ArchiCAD 6.0, which, I believe,
is also an outrageously expensive program. It was nice and comfy, yes, but
there wasn't much I couldn't have done with other, much cheaper utils, with
a bit of inventiveness.
So, what is it about about Maya? Does it wash your dishes? Wax your car? Pay
your bills? Make you popular? What?
Margus
Lance Birch wrote in message <3711f88e.0@news.povray.org>...
>Actually MAX 3, from what I've seen of it, has a new interface which is
more
>like Maya... I really don't see the problem with it's current interface
>though, I thought it was quite intuitive... but then again, that's me!
LOL,
>and I'm strange!
>
>I'm not sure now how anyone can really compare MAX to something like LW or
>Bryce... because MAX is just so much more advanced!!! (well, OK, that's in
>my very bias opinion... ;-)
>
>I must say though it certainly does like hogging resources :)
>
>--
>Lance.
>
>
>---
>For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
>The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
>For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
>Colorblind - http://www.fortunecity.com/skyscraper/parallax/359/colorblind
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rainer Mager wrote:
>
> One other thought I've had was going back to the interpreted idea
> mentioned above. I was wondering if a very small, tightly coded, minimum
> feature-set of ray tracing could be written and compiled and from that set
> additions are added. I do not know enough about the details of a ray tracer
> to say too much more but it seems there are things in POV that need not be
> in the core of the program. For example, shouldn't there be a more flexible
> way to define objects such that there need not be so many different types?
Hmmm... no. More flexible means more features means more types of objects.
What do you want? To always start with a sphere and have to deform it into
the object you want? Always define your objects as an isosurface? Use only
triangle mesh objects? I don't think many people would be happy.
If you think POV has too many options/objects/textures, take a look at 3DS
MAX... the features there (especially when you add plugins) are practically
endless (MAX gave me a headache the first time I used it, but I think the
multitude of features are quite useful).
My opinion: more object types = more flexibility and speed = better system.
> Yes, yes, I know, this would cause a speed hit on the rendering but I'm
> wondering if that could be minimized via the scener parser/compiler.
> Similarly, all of the warps, turbulations, media, etc should be able to be
> emilimated via a very basic system. Perhaps something that allows flexible
> object definitions, flexible light definitions, and flexible texture
> definitions, and the camera of course. After all isn't that all we need?
> Every pov scene is simply objects with textures, light (maybe with texture),
> and the camera (maybe with textures). Even media can just be objects with
> textures.
Well, technically it's in the object's interior, not it's texture.
> If those 4 things could be broken down into a very basic definition then
> everything else could be built on top of that in some scripting language. If
> those basics were optimized enough in the main code then perhaps the later
> scripting slowness would not be too bad.
In raytracing, it think that it's safe to say that EVERYTHING should be
optimized, not just the very basic stuff. Slowness is never "not too bad",
unless there is no other way to solve the problem.
-Nathan Kopp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Oh, I forgot to say...
I LOVE the idea of a brand new scripting language for POV with an old
compatibility-wrapper put over it! I don't think the current syntax
really has what it takes to get things done, since it can't access
and the properties of object instances or access many rendering
engine features.
-Nathan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
