 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Greetings,
Is anyone familiar with the patch from the site below ? It is a dos
v3.1a patch that has some interesting features from what I can tell
from the web site. Just curious but you never know when something
like this will scratch an itch for the keeper of the super patch
and or possibly the Big keepers of the official patch of Povray.
http://kolos.math.uni.lodz.pl/~garusk/eng/povadds.htm
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Probably the most interesting thing is the invisible object removal.
Heck, if that thing could remove the parsing of such I'd think it
miraculous. Doubt that very much.
Ken wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> Is anyone familiar with the patch from the site below ? It is a dos
> v3.1a patch that has some interesting features from what I can tell
> from the web site. Just curious but you never know when something
> like this will scratch an itch for the keeper of the super patch
> and or possibly the Big keepers of the official patch of Povray.
>
> http://kolos.math.uni.lodz.pl/~garusk/eng/povadds.htm
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
--
omniVERSE: beyond the universe
http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
mailto:inv### [at] aol com?Subject=PoV-News
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Apr 1999 07:05:49 -0700, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
>Greetings,
>
> Is anyone familiar with the patch from the site below ? It is a dos
>v3.1a patch that has some interesting features from what I can tell
>from the web site. Just curious but you never know when something
>like this will scratch an itch for the keeper of the super patch
>and or possibly the Big keepers of the official patch of Povray.
All of those additions look potentially useful. I don't want to add
any new features right now, since I really want to make a new version
available sometime soon, but I'll save the URL for future use.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Apr 1999 02:39:49 -0500, Bob Hughes <inv### [at] aolcom>
wrote:
>Probably the most interesting thing is the invisible object removal.
>Heck, if that thing could remove the parsing of such I'd think it
>miraculous. Doubt that very much.
Actually, I think it could. Keep in mind that it's up to the person
writing the script to deal with removing the objects; all the patch
does is provide you with the screen dimensions. If you know that the
bounding box of a complex object is too small to see at thumbnail
size, you could easily put the object in an .inc file and only include
it if the screen size were big enough, thus eliminating the parsing
for that object as well.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I understand, thanks for pointing me right.
"Ronald L. Parker" wrote:
>
> On Sun, 18 Apr 1999 02:39:49 -0500, Bob Hughes <inv### [at] aolcom>
> wrote:
>
> >Probably the most interesting thing is the invisible object removal.
> >Heck, if that thing could remove the parsing of such I'd think it
> >miraculous. Doubt that very much.
>
> Actually, I think it could. Keep in mind that it's up to the person
> writing the script to deal with removing the objects; all the patch
> does is provide you with the screen dimensions. If you know that the
> bounding box of a complex object is too small to see at thumbnail
> size, you could easily put the object in an .inc file and only include
> it if the screen size were big enough, thus eliminating the parsing
> for that object as well.
--
omniVERSE: beyond the universe
http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?Subject=PoV-News
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
