 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4 Dec 2001 15:24:36 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tag povrayorg> wrote:
>Angelo 'kENpEX' Pesce <ken### [at] uniplanit> wrote:
>:>> Just if U have a system
>:>> without dynamic plugin support you'll have to recompile povray with
>:>> every plugin you need and then you can render every scene you want.
>:>> This is what povray *ACTUALLY* does
>
>: Of course you are not aware of them... This is only because it was a
>: feature proposal...
>
> You said "this is what povray *ACTUALLY* does". Now you say it was only
>a proposal, not something povray is actually doing..
Please re-read this thread, as U seem to be the only one that did not
understand this... I was saying that you should not matter about
portability in a (future) modular povray as for the plattforms where
dynamic loading is impossible or not implemented you can always use a
static plugin system, that is much like the actual shading system in
povray, so you don't loose anything in doing that, you just gain
something if the plattform is supported
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4 Dec 2001 14:51:05 -0500, Ron Parker <ron### [at] povrayorg>
wrote:
>Please, is it too much to ask that you actually spell out the words "you"
>and "people"?
I know my english is poor, and as I'm replying to lots of posts, many
will contain typos too... Sorry
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> :> Show us some lightflow images which can't be done in POV-Ray.
>
> : I advise "lightflow" searching at povray.binaries.images first :-)
>
> Granted, Lightflow can do pretty impressive things faster than povray
(ie.
> if you try to simulate the same image with povray it can take a lot
longer).
> However, the same holds in the other direction as well. And I'm pretty
sure
> that there are awesome images made with povray which are either impossible
or
> extremely slow to do with lightflow.
> Besides, AFAIK povray is usually faster than lightflow in many things.
I prefer POV (basically for both its flexibility and general quality), but I
wouldn't say that POV is faster than Lightflow without any real comparison.
You must admit that, although simple, these examples and their rendering
times are quite impressive: http://max3d.3dluvr.com/news.php?n_id=204.
BTW I must admit that I haven't managed to find a good lightflow gallery
(with *real* images, not just tests) yet.
--
Jonathan.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4 Dec 2001 15:31:40 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>:> Show us some lightflow images which can't be done in POV-Ray.
>
>: I advise "lightflow" searching at povray.binaries.images first :-)
>
> Granted, Lightflow can do pretty impressive things faster than povray (ie.
>if you try to simulate the same image with povray it can take a lot longer).
>However, the same holds in the other direction as well. And I'm pretty sure
>that there are awesome images made with povray which are either impossible or
>extremely slow to do with lightflow.
> Besides, AFAIK povray is usually faster than lightflow in many things.
No hope... I don't think so... povray is faster than lightflow only if
U use basic primitives like spheres etc, because lightflow tesselates
them. But in real scenes (the ones you get with a modelling program)
you don't use spheres, cylinders etc, but polygons, nurbs, b-splines,
and subdivision surfaces. In those things lightflow is faster...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Dec 2001 21:19:23 GMT, Angelo 'kENpEX' Pesce wrote:
> On 4 Dec 2001 14:51:05 -0500, Ron Parker <ron### [at] povrayorg>
> wrote:
>
>>Please, is it too much to ask that you actually spell out the words "you"
>>and "people"?
> I know my english is poor, and as I'm replying to lots of posts, many
> will contain typos too... Sorry
That's not a typo, it's a conscious decision. This isn't a chat room.
You don't need to say "U" and "ppl". It just makes it hard to read whatever
you're trying to say.
Followups to off-topic...
--
#macro R(P)z+_(P)_(P)_(P+1)_(P+1)+z#end#macro Q(C,T)bicubic_patch{type 1u_steps
6v_steps 6R(1)R(3)R(5)R(7)pigment{rgb z}}#end#macro _(Y)#local X=asc(substr(C,Y
,1))-65;<T+mod(X,4)div(X,4)9>-2#end#macro O(T)Q("ABEFUQWS",T)Q("WSXTLOJN",T)#
end O(0)O(3)Q("JNKLCGCD",0)light_source{x 1}// ron### [at] povrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Dec 2001 21:58:42 +0100, "Thorsten Froehlich"
<tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
>In article <3c0d32ab@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
>> Besides, AFAIK povray is usually faster than lightflow in many things.
>
>POV-Ray is capable of real-time raytracing. I have shown it is possible
>with the plain 3.5 source code - the result is visible in the Windows and
>Mac about boxes as easter egg...
Wow!
Have U seen realtime raytracing demos like naturesuxx, naturestillsuxx
etc? How does povray compare to those rtrt engines? (of course I know
that povray is not a realtime raytracer) Can U tell me what kind of
optimizations are included in povray 3.5 and how much speed gain you
get over the previous version?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 4 Dec 2001 22:19:03 +0100, "JRG" <jrg### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>Warp wrote:
>> :> Show us some lightflow images which can't be done in POV-Ray.
>>
>> : I advise "lightflow" searching at povray.binaries.images first :-)
>>
>> Granted, Lightflow can do pretty impressive things faster than povray
>(ie.
>> if you try to simulate the same image with povray it can take a lot
>longer).
>> However, the same holds in the other direction as well. And I'm pretty
>sure
>> that there are awesome images made with povray which are either impossible
>or
>> extremely slow to do with lightflow.
>> Besides, AFAIK povray is usually faster than lightflow in many things.
>
>I prefer POV (basically for both its flexibility and general quality), but I
>wouldn't say that POV is faster than Lightflow without any real comparison.
>You must admit that, although simple, these examples and their rendering
>times are quite impressive: http://max3d.3dluvr.com/news.php?n_id=204.
>BTW I must admit that I haven't managed to find a good lightflow gallery
>(with *real* images, not just tests) yet.
A long time ago I did that comparison. I also compared other
raytracers (currently I have used those renderers both for work and
fun:
lightflow/megapov/povman/bmrt/mentalray-softimage/lightwave/renderpark/mcppov/virtualight/brazil/vivid/photorealistic
renderman)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3c0d39b7@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Care to tell us how it is activated?-)
On Windows, look into the Windows source code (you have access to that part
of the depot, don't you?). For Macs it won't help you because I am going to
keep that source code part for myself and I am not going to tell you more
than that it is there in the about box, accessible via an obvious key
combination.
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 <3c0d3e15@news.povray.org> , "JRG" <jrg### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> I prefer POV (basically for both its flexibility and general quality), but I
> wouldn't say that POV is faster than Lightflow without any real comparison.
> You must admit that, although simple, these examples and their rendering
> times are quite impressive: http://max3d.3dluvr.com/news.php?n_id=204.
> BTW I must admit that I haven't managed to find a good lightflow gallery
> (with *real* images, not just tests) yet.
The question would be how many triagles were used in that scene. Without
that piece of information it is impossible to say if the speed is impressive
or not.
Thorsten
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Dec 2001 22:43:22 +0100, Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> In article <3c0d39b7@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
>> Care to tell us how it is activated?-)
>
> On Windows, look into the Windows source code (you have access to that part
> of the depot, don't you?). For Macs it won't help you because I am going to
I thought that was going to be a secret on Windows, too, but there it is.
Maybe it won't be in the unofficial source, though. Perhaps we should move
this discussion to a place where everyone has source access, so as not to
arouse undue jealousy.
--
#macro R(L P)sphere{L F}cylinder{L P F}#end#macro P(V)merge{R(z+a z)R(-z a-z)R(a
-z-z-z a+z)torus{1F clipped_by{plane{a 0}}}translate V}#end#macro Z(a F T)merge{
P(z+a)P(z-a)R(-z-z-x a)pigment{rgbt 1}hollow interior{media{emission T}}finish{
reflection.1}}#end Z(-x-x.2y)Z(-x-x.4x)camera{location z*-10rotate x*90}
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
