 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
That's true but it's not the right effect, and media takes too long to
render (while it can be used to make the effect). What I was saying is just
make it an entirely separate feature to media while being in the interior
statement... (because it's like media, but it'd be a separate algorithm to
calculate it...)
--
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
Nathan Kopp wrote in message <3714E69D.6DD677E7@Kopp.com>...
>Lance Birch wrote:
>>
>> er... sure about that? I don't know, wouldn't that just mean that the
>> object has kind of like a double sided thickness? I mean, translucency
is
>> something that carries THROUGH the object...
>
>What do you mean by "through" the object? Maybe you do want media?
>Or maybe what you're looking for is a mixture of double-sided shading
>and a bit of filter/transparancy (or no_shadow).
>
>I think that the double_sided keyword should take a float value that is
>used to attenuate the shading for the 'wrong' side. That would add a
>bit more flexibility.
>
>-Nathan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The main reason I want to do this is because I think that for POV go get
> better for animation, it needs to be able to do an entire animation from
> a single script WITHOUT RE-PARSING BETWEEN FRAMES!!!!!
>
Yeah!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This is what I meant by making it adjustable. Double_sidedness just mean you
can see the shading of the other side through the object, right? You should be
able to use filter along with it.
It all depends on how far they go with it. Perhaps it could be made into
something like irid, where you would get brackets and all kinds of cool stuff.
How about:
double_sided {
amount [float]
color [vector]
}
Filtering and transmittence should be part of the color and be seperate from the
double_sided keyword. Translucency is just filtered opacity really. The color
would specify the color of the lighted portion of the other side of the
surface. The amount would be the brightness. I don't think a shadow color
would be neccesary, but maybe that could be thrown in.
-Mike
> I think that the double_sided keyword should take a float value that is
> used to attenuate the shading for the 'wrong' side. That would add a
> bit more flexibility.
>
> -Nathan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I agree with what you said except for:
> Translucency is just filtered opacity really.
Because it isn't... remember translucency is depth dependant...
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lance Birch wrote in message <3715eac5.0@news.povray.org>...
>I agree with what you said except for:
>
>> Translucency is just filtered opacity really.
>
>Because it isn't... remember translucency is depth dependant...
>
Filter and transmit would be, too, in RL. In POV you just have to add light
attenuation to the object for this to happen.
Margus
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
True, but the double_sidedness would be a fast trick. Depth could be
simulated with nothing more that a varied illumination from the other side.
What I'm thinking of is like a leaf or a curtain. If there was a way to
specify how much of the illuminated side of the surface shows through, things
like the viens in a leaf or the weave in cloth could be simulated.
Perhaps an opacity_map could be specified within double_sided {} :)
-Mike
Lance Birch wrote:
> I agree with what you said except for:
>
> > Translucency is just filtered opacity really.
>
> Because it isn't... remember translucency is depth dependant...
>
> --
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Adding new objects, assuming you can provide the necessary functionality
> for them, is simplicity itself.
As I see it, it's not the fact the POV in written in
C that makes it troublesome to provide a patch. It's
the monolithic parser - you can't add parsing functionality
without hitting the code for every other type of
primitive. I'd like to see some work towards
modularising the parser. I think it can be done...
--
Nigel Stewart (nig### [at] eisa netau) http://www.eisa.net.au/~nigels/
Postgrad Research Student, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
All extremists should be taken out and shot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13 Apr 1999 16:55:57 -0500, par### [at] my-dejanewscom (Ron Parker)
wrote:
[snip]
>Finally, there are patches like my motion-blur patch that change lots of
>fundamental data structures. Modularity won't help much there.
>
Any chance of coercing you into putting your web site in a sig line?
I'm going to have to start searching for this motion-blur patch and
docs.. Hmm, will check Twyst's site first...
Cheers,
Cliff Bowman
Why not pay my 3D Dr Who site a visit at
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/7855/
PS change ".duffnet" to ".net" if replying via e-mail
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Apr 1999 00:20:46 -0400, Nathan Kopp <Nat### [at] Koppcom>
wrote:
>For all of you who dislike the concept of object oriened POV script, I think
>one thing should be clarified. At least some of us are proposting a semi-
>object oriented language... where we implement the encapsulation and (in a
>wierd way) inheritence, but NOT data hiding. That means you can access
>parts of an object but you don't have to do so through methods.
>
>The main reason I want to do this is because I think that for POV go get
>better for animation, it needs to be able to do an entire animation from
>a single script WITHOUT RE-PARSING BETWEEN FRAMES!!!!!
>
Oh boy. Calms down to avoid calling Nathan "God". OK, I'm ready.
You know, that idea isn't half bad. I could seriously make use of that
:)
Cheers,
Cliff Bowman
Why not pay my 3D Dr Who site a visit at
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/7855/
PS change ".duffnet" to ".net" if replying via e-mail
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 12 May 1999 18:26:43 GMT, Cliff Bowman wrote:
>On 13 Apr 1999 16:55:57 -0500, par### [at] my-dejanewscom (Ron Parker)
>wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>Finally, there are patches like my motion-blur patch that change lots of
>>fundamental data structures. Modularity won't help much there.
>>
>Any chance of coercing you into putting your web site in a sig line?
>I'm going to have to start searching for this motion-blur patch and
>docs.. Hmm, will check Twyst's site first...
You'll find it there. It's not on my website anyway. But before you
can convince me to put my web site in a sig line, you'll have to convince
me to have a sig line.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12 May 1999 17:40:35 -0500, par### [at] fwicom (Ron Parker) wrote:
>On Wed, 12 May 1999 18:26:43 GMT, Cliff Bowman wrote:
>>On 13 Apr 1999 16:55:57 -0500, par### [at] my-dejanewscom (Ron Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
[snip]
>>Any chance of coercing you into putting your web site in a sig line?
>>I'm going to have to start searching for this motion-blur patch and
>>docs.. Hmm, will check Twyst's site first...
>
>You'll find it there. It's not on my website anyway. But before you
>can convince me to put my web site in a sig line, you'll have to convince
>me to have a sig line.
Well - I was kind of hoping for a two-in one deal. You know, get you
to use your web site *as* your sig line.
Any news on when the 3.1e sources might be avilable for "patchers" to
tack their code into? Not that I'm finding 3.1a and 3.1e render scenes
differently (not much they don't!)
Cheers,
Cliff Bowman
Why not pay my 3D Dr Who site a visit at
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/7855/
PS change ".duffnet" to ".net" if replying via e-mail
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nathan Kopp <Nat### [at] Koppcom> wrote in message
news:370CBD92.582CBC9E@Kopp.com...
>
> >
> > Instead of multiple unique objects to handle, it's suggested to use a
> > single consistent object model for everything from geometry to
> > textures.
>
> I disagree. I think a distinction must be made between objects,
materials,
> pigments, finishes, ...
>
> Looking at it from OO again, "a sphere HAS A material" is true, not
> "a sphere IS A material". However, "a sphere IS A object" would be
> correct.
>
This true, but it's also valid to say :
"a sphere IS_A scene_element"
"a material IS_A scene_element"
and you then can have :
"a sphere HAS_A material"
Just because two objects are derived from the same root object it
doesn't necessarily mean that they have an IS_A relationship.
--
Scott Hill : sco### [at] cyberlifecouk
Software Engineer (and all round nice guy)
Author of Pandora's Box : Watch this space.
Work homepage : http://www.cyberlife.co.uk
"We will decide what the news is. The news is what we tell you it is." - The
Fox TV network.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Anthony Bennett <ben### [at] panamaphoenixnet> wrote in message
news:371### [at] panamaphoenixnet...
> 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...
Too bad somebody isn't willing to give me £25K a year for writing
Pandora's Box (my not-so-soon to be freeware modeller for POV).
I know I'm biased, but boy is it looking like it's going to be cool (If
it ever actually gets done (looking less and less likely as "the new job"
keeps getting in the way)). Nice intuitive UI (it'll work just the way _you_
want to it work!) and a powerful, yet flexible (and probably
over-ambitious), feature set.
(Details on the web just as soon as a) I get my self a web-site and b)
they're ready for publishing (things are still too fluid for that)).
--
Scott Hill : sco### [at] cyberlifecouk
Software Engineer (and all round nice guy)
Author of Pandora's Box : Watch this space.
Work homepage : http://www.cyberlife.co.uk
"We will decide what the news is. The news is what we tell you it is." - The
Fox TV network.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 09 Apr 1999 15:02:45 +0200, Mikael Carneholm
<sa9### [at] idautbhbse> wrote:
>This is exactly what I didn't mean: It should _not_ be totally re-written, just
>expanded with some new possibilities. It would be _optional_ to have attributes
>in an object, and it would be _optional_ to have methods for an object. You could
>still do like you're used to, like this:
>
>box{
> <>,<>
> texture{}
>}
>
>...and it would still render as a beautiful box, without first being declared as
>a "class" and instanced with object{}. But, I personally would like to have the
>option to declare it like this:
>
>#declare MyBox=box{
> <>,<>
> texture{}
>
> attribute speed;
> attribute direction;
>
> #macro Move()
> translate speed*direction
> #end
>}
>
>What I miss most is being able to access the different parts of an object like
>the position, size, texture etc. If those were accessable via dot
>notation(.position, .size, .texture etc) things would light up a great deal.
>
>Once again, do not remove the backward-compability, just add some new features
>that expands the scripting language and that can be used _optionally_.
I don't object to object orientation in principle, although I despise
the long-winded dot notation. I would indeed like to have access to
the properties of an object, preferably via additional keywords and
functions. My big problem with this proposal is that, if you dump the
old syntax for an OO version, you lose too many people who can't
handle the transition. If you keep both syntax styles the POV parser,
already getting unwieldy, will become such a PITA that the pace of
expansion and development will slow radically and things that do get
written will have multitudes of painful bugs. You might as well just
hire Microsux to write the next version of POV! :)
Jerry Anning
clem "at" dhol "dot" com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jerry Anning wrote:
>
> I don't object to object orientation in principle, although I despise
> the long-winded dot notation. I would indeed like to have access to
> the properties of an object, preferably via additional keywords and
> functions. My big problem with this proposal is that, if you dump the
> old syntax for an OO version, you lose too many people who can't
> handle the transition. If you keep both syntax styles the POV parser,
> already getting unwieldy, will become such a PITA that the pace of
> expansion and development will slow radically and things that do get
> written will have multitudes of painful bugs. You might as well just
> hire Microsux to write the next version of POV! :)
>
I kind of agree... but since when is dot notation long-winded? A dot,
being a single character, is about as short as you can get. What I
dislike is having to put "#declare" in front of all assignment statements.
It's worse than the LET in very old versions of BASIC.
In some ways I wish the entire POV language could be cleaned up (but this
could cause a lack of backwards compatibility)... and I think that the
object-oriented ability to change properties of an instance of an object
is a MUST, since I think that we should be able to do animation within
a single script (without the need to re-parse!!!!) by changing an
attribute of a single object and re-rendering.
-Nathan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 09 Apr 1999 22:27:53 -0400, Nathan Kopp <Nat### [at] Koppcom>
wrote:
>Jerry Anning wrote:
>>
>> I don't object to object orientation in principle, although I despise
>> the long-winded dot notation.
>
>... but since when is dot notation long-winded? A dot,
>being a single character, is about as short as you can get. What I
>dislike is having to put "#declare" in front of all assignment statements.
>It's worse than the LET in very old versions of BASIC.
I've just seen too many pathological specimens that look like:
Object.box.face.vertical.x_axis_normal.left.ColorVector.red.Increment(.2)
I exaggerate, but the point should be clear. "#declare" irritates me
too. I suppose that in my perfect world everything would be an APL
one-liner....
Jerry Anning
clem "at" dhol "dot" com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>I suppose that in my perfect world everything would be an APL
>one-liner....
Wow at least one person did not forget APL beauties ....
Another goody with APL : you don't have to store the sources : anyway nobody
can understand it even yourself as soon as you have pushed the <Return< Key.
:-)
(no joke : I loved this crazy, magic language, even the name is great :A
Programming Language)
Philippe
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eugene Arenhaus wrote:
>
> Hi.
>
> Here are some thoughts about what POV-Ray 4 could look like.
>
Hi!
What you write seem to me like a very good idea even
though there have been many negative responses in this
newsgroup. A somewhat different suggestion rather than
to implement your comments in a rewritten povray 4
would be to gather a few (4-5) raytracer programmers
and create a completely new (free!) raytracer based on
the experience we have drawn from povray. The concept
would be the same, a scriptable raytracer engine based
on a formal language rather than a GUI, but one would
get the chance to implement everything in a "cleaner"
and more OO etc way...
I have been thinking for quite some time about
implementing a povray like raytracer (not sharing any
piece of code!) to face both the problems you mentioned
in your earlier comments and to get a chanche to
implement a few other conceptual ideas (I will not dvelve
into those here, the posting would become very large
otherwise). I think a clean restart on a completely
separate program (with a completly different name and
not using a single line of pov code or anything the like)
would be the best since it probably would take a long
time before the program becomes good and popular with
users (the conceptuall ideas, both yours and mine,will
probably have to evolve before they become
"user-friendly". Syntax,Semantics etc will need to
change) and facing such major changes as you proposed
it would be best if users and developers don't see it
as just another version of Povray.
Two negative aspects of creating a new raytracer would
be that the math's have to be redone (immoral and
illegal to reuse code from povray) and the risk of not
becoming popular among the users.
So to the conclusion... are you interested in writing a
*new* raytracer? If so I would be happy to discuss design
issues and brainstorm features. Is anyone else (serious)
interested in writing a *new* raytracer? It's an enourmous
task to do so but it would realy be fun...
/ Mathias Broxvall
Student @ Linköping University . Sweden
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Apr 1999 14:11:00 +0200, Mathias Broxvall
<x99### [at] idaliuse> wrote:
>So to the conclusion... are you interested in writing a
>*new* raytracer? If so I would be happy to discuss design
>issues and brainstorm features. Is anyone else (serious)
>interested in writing a *new* raytracer? It's an enourmous
>task to do so but it would realy be fun...
Someone else obviously is... see
http://www.gnu.org/software/panorama/panorama.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Roland Mas wrote in message ...
>
>Yes, sure. But it would anyway imply a huge lot of calculations,
>because the ray is bent all along its path and not just on a few
>points of it. Which means: a *big* number of samples. Each of them
>needing to calculate a ior local gradient. Sloooow.
>
Well, "slooooooowwww" would be one of the first words I'd use to describe
raytracing in general :)
Margus
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Roland Mas wrote:
>
> Mikael Carneholm <sa9### [at] idautbhbse> writes:
>
> > #declare SomeSphere.radius=1.5;
>
> I'm not sure it really cannot be done.
I don't think it can be. If it can, let me know!
-Nathan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
#declare a sphere with radius = 1 , location <0, 0, 0>and then scale it!
object
{
SomeSphere
scale 1.5
translate y
}
Just to give the answer, I don't believe it's the best way to work with POV
Philippe
Nathan Kopp a écrit dans le message <37140FC2.5FA863D6@Kopp.com>...
>Roland Mas wrote:
>>
>> Mikael Carneholm <sa9### [at] idautbhbse> writes:
>>
>> > #declare SomeSphere.radius=1.5;
>>
>> I'm not sure it really cannot be done.
>
>I don't think it can be. If it can, let me know!
>
>-Nathan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Spider jumps in. Decloaked.
Ok, I've kept myself out of this thread too long .-)
Actually, some very good ideas has come, but the OO scripting is one oof my
favourites(and translucency:-)
Here goes.
Roland Mas wrote:
>
> Mikael Carneholm <sa9### [at] idautbhbse> writes:
>
> > This is already pretty close to OO scripting! (SomeSphere is the
> > "class" and it is instanced with object{})
>
> Sure. Why change that?
Good.
> > Now, what we can't do with the current version is this:
> >
> > #declare SomeSphere.position=SomeSphere.position+<0,1,0>;
>
> #declare SomeSphere = object { SomeSphere translate y }
> Does exactly it.
Sure, but you can't do
#declare SomeSphere.position.y = SomeSphere.position.x;
#declare SomeSphere.position.x = SomeSphere.position.z;
without a biiig hazzle.
> > #declare SomeSphere.radius=1.5;
>
> I'm not sure it really cannot be done.
yes, but to change an objects propertised based on it's current properties.
that's where the OO mode will come in as a GREAT aid.
> > #declare SomeSphere.pigment=pigment{color rgb<0,0,1>};
>
> #declare SomeSphere = object { SomeSphere pigment{color rgb<0,0,1>} }
> Does exactly it.
yes, but if I want a nifty shader done on the object depending on its position?
That would turn out pretty nasty(Sure, use a texture, but that woudln't suit in
all cases. (ie. the whole objects pigment depends on it y value(gradient y) )
> Anyway, what's the use of all that? Want to have another sphere,
> redeclare it. Or better, if it's another sphere, use another object.
It's not another sphere. It's the SAME sphere. That's the point with oo.
> --
> Roland Mas
--
//Spider
[ spi### [at] bahnhofse ]-[ http://www.bahnhof.se/~spider/ ]
What I can do and what I could do, I just don't know anymore
"Marian"
By: "Sisters Of Mercy"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Spider <spi### [at] bahnhofse> writes:
> > > Now, what we can't do with the current version is this:
> > >
> > > #declare SomeSphere.position=SomeSphere.position+<0,1,0>;
> >
> > #declare SomeSphere = object { SomeSphere translate y }
> > Does exactly it.
> Sure, but you can't do
> #declare SomeSphere.position.y = SomeSphere.position.x;
> #declare SomeSphere.position.x = SomeSphere.position.z;
True, even if I can't see the use of such a thing.
> yes, but if I want a nifty shader done on the object depending on
> its position? That would turn out pretty nasty(Sure, use a texture,
> but that woudln't suit in all cases. (ie. the whole objects pigment
> depends on it y value(gradient y) )
I'm afraid I don't understand that sentence.
> > Anyway, what's the use of all that? Want to have another sphere,
> > redeclare it. Or better, if it's another sphere, use another object.
> It's not another sphere. It's the SAME sphere. That's the point with
> oo.
If it's the same, why did you declare it wrongly in the first place?
Declare it with the correct parameters...
--
Roland Mas
It would be hard to be deader without special training.
-- Theatre of Cruelty (Terry Pratchett)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Apr 1999 14:05:41 +0200, Spider <spi### [at] bahnhofse> wrote:
>> > Now, what we can't do with the current version is this:
>> >
>> > #declare SomeSphere.position=SomeSphere.position+<0,1,0>;
>>
>> #declare SomeSphere = object { SomeSphere translate y }
>> Does exactly it.
>Sure, but you can't do
>#declare SomeSphere.position.y = SomeSphere.position.x;
>#declare SomeSphere.position.x = SomeSphere.position.z;
>
>without a biiig hazzle.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: if you need access
to the position of the sphere, put it in a variable when you know
it, then use the variable later. Yes, this is simplistic. Yes,
it's not as sexy as having lots of dots (the most-used word of 1997
was dot, after all.)
>> Anyway, what's the use of all that? Want to have another sphere,
>> redeclare it. Or better, if it's another sphere, use another object.
>It's not another sphere. It's the SAME sphere. That's the point with oo.
There's no use to moving the spheres around unless you have the ability
to save the scene for use in the next frame. If that's what you want
to do, you already have semi-persistent variables with the read/write
stuff, though in principle I'm opposed to persistent variables anyway,
since they sorta kill any scalability-across-a-network an animation
might have had.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Roland Mas wrote:
Ok, here I go again :-)
> Spider <spi### [at] bahnhofse> writes:
>
> > > > Now, what we can't do with the current version is this:
> > > >
> > > > #declare SomeSphere.position=SomeSphere.position+<0,1,0>;
> > >
> > > #declare SomeSphere = object { SomeSphere translate y }
> > > Does exactly it.
> > Sure, but you can't do
> > #declare SomeSphere.position.y = SomeSphere.position.x;
> > #declare SomeSphere.position.x = SomeSphere.position.z;
>
> True, even if I can't see the use of such a thing.
Ok, but it was the point that was meant. The possibility to access an objects
current position without having to use a variable for each value. I know I am
lazy, but I still want to be able to do this:
light_source {
location camera.location
colour rgb 1
shadowless
spotlight
point_at camera.look_at
radius...
}
Without declaring the variables
#declare scCameraLocation = <-1200, 105, 1000>;
#declare scCameralookAt = <...>;
and so on..
And the other places it would be nice in can be a include file accessing the
camera postition for placing items, (like a lens-flare) as well as light_sources
positions. (now here is a hazzle, how to access the RIGHT light_source ? add
them in an array? Give them a name identifier?
> > yes, but if I want a nifty shader done on the object depending on
> > its position? That would turn out pretty nasty(Sure, use a texture,
> > but that woudln't suit in all cases. (ie. the whole objects pigment
> > depends on it y value(gradient y) )
> I'm afraid I don't understand that sentence.
If you take a look at my world macro, the boxes have an height value.
if I take this a few steps further, and want to give more objects a pigment
depending on the distance from the camera, I'd either have to declare all the
object points in variables(arrays) or start adding vlength(pos-campos)
everywhere. This is just one use that hits me now.
>
> > > Anyway, what's the use of all that? Want to have another sphere,
> > > redeclare it. Or better, if it's another sphere, use another object.
> > It's not another sphere. It's the SAME sphere. That's the point with
> > oo.
>
> If it's the same, why did you declare it wrongly in the first place?
> Declare it with the correct parameters...
But that's the nasty point...
It may not be possible to do so at all, but to have to go with #declares, yes.
say I want to use simpsons method to integrate a point on a curve. (it's a
recursive algorithm, using the last values for computing)
just one idea for use.
--
//Spider
[ spi### [at] bahnhofse ]-[ http://www.bahnhof.se/~spider/ ]
What I can do and what I could do, I just don't know anymore
"Marian"
By: "Sisters Of Mercy"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ronald L. Parker wrote in message >Someone else obviously is... see
>http://www.gnu.org/software/panorama/panorama.html
>
I agree wholly about the compatibility issue. Panorama might be the greatest
raytracer in the world, but as it uses a completely different scene
language, I cannot use ANY POV-Ray code/macro/snippet etc... so this ends
the question.
About the syntax issue: one might preprocess an OO scene language into the
POV-Ray one, adding a new language without harning back compatability. By
the way, C++ started just a C preprocessor. When the raytracing community
eventually settles on a POV-Ray++ language (you heard it here first ;-) )
then it can be embedded in the official program.
In the past i have written posting which have generated quite a good deal of
flames. I was not meaning to steal anybody code (I am a programmer and I do
not like thieves) or messing around. I was proposing extensions which might
give raise to improvements WITHIN the overall accepted framework of POV.
a.c### [at] iolit
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Apr 1999 12:10:11 +0200, Alessandro Coppo <a.c### [at] iolit> wrote:
>
>Ronald L. Parker wrote in message >Someone else obviously is... see
>>http://www.gnu.org/software/panorama/panorama.html
>>
>
>I agree wholly about the compatibility issue. Panorama might be the greatest
>raytracer in the world, but as it uses a completely different scene
>language, I cannot use ANY POV-Ray code/macro/snippet etc... so this ends
>the question.
You must have missed the part where it mentioned that someone is writing
a POV-script frontend for it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Spider wrote:
> Ok, but it was the point that was meant. The possibility to access an objects
> current position without having to use a variable for each value. I know I am
> lazy, but I still want to be able to do this:
> light_source {
> location camera.location
> colour rgb 1
> shadowless
> spotlight
> point_at camera.look_at
> radius...
> }
> Without declaring the variables
> #declare scCameraLocation = <-1200, 105, 1000>;
> #declare scCameralookAt = <...>;
> and so on..
Nice to see someone else who has realised the usefulness of OO scripting. As I said:
what I miss most when writing include files for POV-Ray, is the possibility to
access attributes of different objects like the camera, a lightsource or whatever.
What's more, I'd like to be able to access the current frame number, the initial
clock, the final clock etc - i.e, all the INI file settings. So I think a keyword
for the next version of POV would be 'accessible' as in 'all attributes are now
accessible'.
- Mikael.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mikael Carneholm
Dep. of Computer Science
Högskolan i Borås, Sweden
http://www.studenter.hb.se/~arch
E-mail: sa9### [at] idautbhbse
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (1 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker wrote in message <3725e41b.0@news.povray.org>...
>You must have missed the part where it mentioned that someone is writing
>a POV-script frontend for it.
From what I know, the real problem is that Panorama engine does not support
many features of POV e.g. I think that there is nothing comparable to all
the media bells and whistles (VERY beatiful and VERY slow).
Anyway, I again advise NOT to select a new language for version 4 but to
experiment with preprocessors and frontends. When there will be a general
agreement, add the new language.
Alessandro Coppo
a.c### [at] iolit
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13 Apr 1999 18:57:55 +0200, rol### [at] casimirrezelenstfr (Roland
Mas) wrote:
>Mikael Carneholm <sa9### [at] idautbhbse> writes:
>
>> This is already pretty close to OO scripting! (SomeSphere is the
>> "class" and it is instanced with object{})
>
>Sure. Why change that?
?? Surely the scripting in POV 3.1 is pretty similar to that in 3.0,
or even the first version of POV scripting. why did they change it? To
improve on it's functionality.
>> Now, what we can't do with the current version is this:
>>
>> #declare SomeSphere.position=SomeSphere.position+<0,1,0>;
>
>#declare SomeSphere = object { SomeSphere translate y }
>Does exactly it.
Not quite, I suspect. Isuspect the OOP example would change the
position property of the pre-defined object "SomeSphere" (which could
of course consist of googillions of sphere and/or other objects rather
than just 1 sphere) rather than creating a new object. Where memory is
tight or the object complex (or both) it might well be preferable to
adjust the properties of the object rather than declaring a whole new
object, or keeping texture, location, object etc. etc. seperate and
only combining them at "object placement time" (far more complex and
liable to user error IMO).
>> #declare SomeSphere.radius=1.5;
>
>I'm not sure it really cannot be done.
As long as the SomeSphere object is just a single sphere, seems easy
enough to do in POV script as is.
>> #declare SomeSphere.pigment=pigment{color rgb<0,0,1>};
>
>#declare SomeSphere = object { SomeSphere pigment{color rgb<0,0,1>} }
>Does exactly it.
Again, I could be wrong but I suspect the OOP line is modifying the
properties of an existing object where you are specifying how to
create an object with such-and-so properties (providing, IIRC, that it
isn't already textured/coloured).
>Anyway, what's the use of all that? Want to have another sphere,
>redeclare it. Or better, if it's another sphere, use another object.
Not necessarily ideal. Take making an asteroid out hundreds of
randomly jittered sperical blob components as an example. Simly
adjusting the texture might make a cloud of asteroids easier to do
than re-declaring each asteroid - especially if (for any reason) each
asteroid is meant to be identical in actual shape (oh it can be done -
but tedious for the modeller and computer alike).
Pov already has some dot notation. I'm not particularly familiar with
the POV scene description language, or very adept with it, but I'm
sure I've seen .x, .y, and .z used to retreive co-ordinate
information. What's the political argument against extending this
(already present) style of object data access?
Cheers,
Cliff Bowman
Why not pay my 3D Dr Who site a visit at
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/7855/
PS change ".duffnet" to ".net" if replying via e-mail
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 12 May 1999 18:26:41 GMT, Cliff Bowman wrote:
>>> #declare SomeSphere.position=SomeSphere.position+<0,1,0>;
>>
>>#declare SomeSphere = object { SomeSphere translate y }
>>Does exactly it.
>
>Not quite, I suspect. Isuspect the OOP example would change the
>.position property of the pre-defined object "SomeSphere"
...
>it might well be preferable to
>adjust the properties of the object rather than declaring a whole new
>object
You're not declaring a whole new object. Since you're putting it in
the same place, the old one gets destroyed and the new one takes its
place. The only thing that might be optimized better is the fact that
while the object {...} block is open, there are two copies of the object
in memory.
>Not necessarily ideal. Take making an asteroid out hundreds of
>randomly jittered sperical blob components as an example. Simly
>adjusting the texture might make a cloud of asteroids easier to do
>than re-declaring each asteroid - especially if (for any reason) each
>asteroid is meant to be identical in actual shape (oh it can be done -
>but tedious for the modeller and computer alike).
For this were macros invented.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
