 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
in news:3c0fa0b2.20451405@news.povray.org Angelo 'kENpEX' Pesce wrote:
> Who cares is a raytracer crashes or if it
> has a bug? The next release will fix them...
The professional user with a deadline will ...
Ingo
--
Photography: http://members.home.nl/ingoogni/
Pov-Ray : http://members.home.nl/seed7/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Dec 2001 16:55:57 +0100, "Thorsten Froehlich"
<tho### [at] trf de> wrote:
>In article <3c0f8a23$1@news.povray.org> , "Mael" <mae### [at] hotmailcom>
>wrote:
>
>> hmmm gcc (the gnu compiler) runs on many platforms,
>Don't get me started on gcc and its many, many flaws*, just so much: Their
>core developers recently (in a discussion about future of development and
>supporting IA-64) criticized the many problems they have in their code and
>that nobody wants to commit to fix them, but lots of people porting it here
>and there. In summary this looks exactly like POV-Ray would be now if all
>the people over the years had had their way.
>* It is a portable C compiler. It is a great C compiler for embedded
>development as commercial compilers for embedded systems or usually very
>expensive. However, for any serious work outside the embedded world,
>especially on desktop or server systems it is unsuitable. A million monkeys
>on a million typewriters won't change that.
I agree with you... Gcc is not a serious environment for complex
projects. So which compilers are U using? As I own intel C Compiler
for VisualC I could compile the povray sources for the official
distro, if the pov-team does not have access to it. Another fine tool
from intel is the Vtune profiler...
>____________________________________________________
>Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
>e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
>
>Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
>
> Alessandro Coppo wrote:
>>
>> It came to me that displacement mapping is almost like isosurfaces. For
>> example, a displacement mapped sphere is an isosurface described by
>> a sphere + displacement function. So I would not call it impossible (or
>> only for meshes) but "just" computationally heavy.
>>
>
> I just want to mention that this is not really true, 'displacement' with
> isosurfaces works much different than with meshes. For example in your
> sphere sample you can get separate surface parts with an isosurface while
> this is impossible with displacement mapping.
>
> Christoph
>
I was just pointing out a way to handle the problem with objects defined not
by meshes but by some mathematical properties (x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = r)
Bye!!!
B.T.W. displacement mapping is NOT the most important subject for pov4....
there are other more pressing needs.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6 Dec 2001 12:18:53 -0500, ingo <ing### [at] homenl> wrote:
>in news:3c0fa0b2.20451405@news.povray.org Angelo 'kENpEX' Pesce wrote:
>
>> Who cares is a raytracer crashes or if it
>> has a bug? The next release will fix them...
>
>The professional user with a deadline will ...
I'm not saying that you can allow bugs into povray, I'm saying that
it's untrue that integrating patches is more critical in povray, as
the bugs that they could add are less critical than the bugs in other
apps, like the ones in a server os kernel...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> In article <3c0f5c5b@news.povray.org> , Alessandro Coppo <a.c### [at] iolit>
> wrote:
>
>> little more than 20/40 lines
>
> You obviously never looked into the POV-Ray source code. Hardly any of
> the proceduaral textures (which is _basically_ what you call shader) is
> complex
> at all. They are very simple 5 to 20 line C functions, even the fractal
> patterns are...
I haven't seen a 40-liner POV C-source pattern capable of creating a word
with colored continents, cloud system with Coriolis-like overall shape and
atmosphere absorbtion.... I HAVE seen a RenderMan shader doing so...
The ONLY reason why I haven't just downloaded BMRT and stopped thinking
about POV is that BMRT is even less open source than POVRay!!!
Bye
P.S.: why the POVTeam asked in fact for feedbacks in the past about POV4
feature list when all of you already have granitic ideas about what is
"good" and what is not? I do not ask questions when I have already made up
my mind.
P.P.S.: I have had a "look" at POV 3.1 source, POVMAN, MegaPOV, Ray++,
Panorama, idx3, Rayshade, Radiance, Ray++, ArtOfIllusion, Raja and
zrcube...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3c0fa705.22070694@news.povray.org> , ken### [at] uniplanit (Angelo
'kENpEX' Pesce) wrote:
> Mabye the problem is that developing an os
> kernel really is harder than developing a raytracer...
Well, maybe developing a *monolithic* kernel is harder than developing a
raytracer. Of course, this thread is about POV-Ray and not about the worst
kernel design winning - which is precisely what Linux is and what is
bloating the kernel and causing all the problems. Or, maybe that is a
general pattern of success: Something hacked or bought together with no
commitment to a good design (DOS, Windows, Linux, the original PC, the x86
instruction sets).
Anyway, all this is off-topic...
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3c0fa8bf.22512592@news.povray.org> , ken### [at] uniplanit (Angelo
'kENpEX' Pesce) wrote:
> I agree with you... Gcc is not a serious environment for complex
> projects. So which compilers are U using? As I own intel C Compiler
> for VisualC I could compile the povray sources for the official
> distro, if the pov-team does not have access to it. Another fine tool
> from intel is the Vtune profiler...
Did you actually ever download POV-Ray 3.5 beta for Windows????????
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3c0facfa@news.povray.org> , Alessandro Coppo <a.c### [at] iolit>
wrote:
> P.S.: why the POVTeam asked in fact for feedbacks in the past about POV4
> feature list when all of you already have granitic ideas about what is
> "good" and what is not? I do not ask questions when I have already made up
> my mind.
We made exactly the opposite statement, clearly expressing that whatever you
discuss *will* be ignored (which we don't as you notice). You can read it in
the "POV-Team Status Report - September 1, 2000" which is extremely clear:
"Finally, the POV-Team is currently not going to be involved in any public
discussion about POV 4. We need to focus our efforts on POV 3.5. Only
after the release of POV 3.5 will work on version 4 begin. The community
can feel free to discuss this topic, but should not expect the POV-Team to
read such discussions at this time."
The last sentence in this statement is the main point. Not reading
discussions make clear that we will ignore your ideas in those discussions
(as we can't even know about them). Of course you can discuss it, but there
is no point unless you want to waste your own time (you are not implementing
the features and we will ignore you), which you are free to do...
Thorsten
PS: Please check your time and timezone settings. They are off by about six
hours!
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich
e-mail: mac### [at] povrayorg
I am a member of the POV-Ray Team.
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 6 Dec 2001 18:45:27 -0500, Alessandro Coppo <a.c### [at] iolit>
wrote:
>Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
>
>> In article <3c0f5c5b@news.povray.org> , Alessandro Coppo <a.c### [at] iolit>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> little more than 20/40 lines
>>
>> You obviously never looked into the POV-Ray source code. Hardly any of
>> the proceduaral textures (which is _basically_ what you call shader) is
>> complex
>> at all. They are very simple 5 to 20 line C functions, even the fractal
>> patterns are...
>
>I haven't seen a 40-liner POV C-source pattern capable of creating a word
>with colored continents, cloud system with Coriolis-like overall shape and
>atmosphere absorbtion.... I HAVE seen a RenderMan shader doing so...
>
>The ONLY reason why I haven't just downloaded BMRT and stopped thinking
>about POV is that BMRT is even less open source than POVRay!!!
Just use PovMan... BMRT is too slow...
>Bye
>P.S.: why the POVTeam asked in fact for feedbacks in the past about POV4
>feature list when all of you already have granitic ideas about what is
>"good" and what is not? I do not ask questions when I have already made up
>my mind.
Yes, is seems that noone has doubs about povray, its future and what
should be done
>P.P.S.: I have had a "look" at POV 3.1 source, POVMAN, MegaPOV, Ray++,
>Panorama, idx3, Rayshade, Radiance, Ray++, ArtOfIllusion, Raja and
>zrcube...
Ray++ has some fine intersection routines imho
idx3 is not a raytracer...
Raja is so slow, what about this ArtOfIllusion???
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Dec 2001 18:39:05 +0100, "Thorsten Froehlich"
<tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
>In article <3c0fa8bf.22512592@news.povray.org> , ken### [at] uniplanit (Angelo
>'kENpEX' Pesce) wrote:
>
>> I agree with you... Gcc is not a serious environment for complex
>> projects. So which compilers are U using? As I own intel C Compiler
>> for VisualC I could compile the povray sources for the official
>> distro, if the pov-team does not have access to it. Another fine tool
>> from intel is the Vtune profiler...
>
>Did you actually ever download POV-Ray 3.5 beta for Windows????????
How should I know which compiler is used if I just have the binary
file?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
