POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.programming : A thought for 4.0 Server Time
28 Jul 2024 12:33:55 EDT (-0400)
  A thought for 4.0 (Message 20 to 29 of 29)  
<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Initial 10 Messages
From: Fidel viegas
Subject: Re: A thought for 4.0
Date: 20 Sep 2002 13:10:42
Message: <B9B1143E.4D9E%fidel.viegas@artrecognition.co.uk>
> It was implemented in MegaPOV and the Team had their good reasons that
> the implementation didn't make it into 3.5.
> 
Well, I never played that much with MegaPov. But, now that you have
mentioned it, what were the reasons that led the team to omit it from
version 3.5?

Best Regards

Fidel.


Post a reply to this message

From: Christopher James Huff
Subject: Re: A thought for 4.0
Date: 20 Sep 2002 13:39:43
Message: <chrishuff-E3FB2F.13374420092002@netplex.aussie.org>
In article <B9B1143E.4D9E%fid### [at] artrecognitioncouk>,
 Fidel viegas <fid### [at] artrecognitioncouk> wrote:

> Well, I never played that much with MegaPov. But, now that you have
> mentioned it, what were the reasons that led the team to omit it from
> version 3.5?

Well, as I recall, it never quite worked right and there wasn't 
agreement on exactly how it should be done. And maybe the POV Team plans 
some better way for 4.0, and didn't want to add an incompatible method 
to 3.5.

-- 
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/


Post a reply to this message

From: Fidel viegas
Subject: Re: A thought for 4.0
Date: 20 Sep 2002 21:39:39
Message: <B9B18B85.4DCD%fidel.viegas@artrecognition.co.uk>
in article chr### [at] netplexaussieorg, Christopher
James Huff at chr### [at] maccom wrote on 20/9/02 6:37 pm:

> In article <B9B1143E.4D9E%fid### [at] artrecognitioncouk>,
> Fidel viegas <fid### [at] artrecognitioncouk> wrote:
> 
>> Well, I never played that much with MegaPov. But, now that you have
>> mentioned it, what were the reasons that led the team to omit it from
>> version 3.5?
> 
> Well, as I recall, it never quite worked right and there wasn't
> agreement on exactly how it should be done. And maybe the POV Team plans
> some better way for 4.0, and didn't want to add an incompatible method
> to 3.5.

Thanks Chris.

All the best

Fidel.


Post a reply to this message

From: Theo Gottwald *
Subject: One new each year !
Date: 21 Sep 2002 00:34:54
Message: <3d8bf6ee$1@news.povray.org>
> The book "The Pragmatic Programmer" (which I don't own, but plan to get)
> recommended learning at least one new language a year, to avoid getting
> stuck in a single mindset.

This book could be from me. I am also a fan of "one new each year".
(not gf, but PGML :-).

--Theo

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------
Distributed Network-Rendering or Local SMP-Rendering on all CPU's you have.
With SMPOV und POV-Ray 3.5. Download free at:
http://www.it-berater.org/smpov.htm


Post a reply to this message

From: mike
Subject: Re: A thought for 4.0
Date: 21 Sep 2002 14:00:07
Message: <web.3d8cb2a6b371cc9b349ff7400@news.povray.org>
David McCabe wrote:
>Hello!
>
>I don't know how far you are in the design process for 4.0, but assuming not
>very far at all, I just had an idea that you might like.
>
>Rather then having some weird, limited, language with a lot of code to
>maintain, why not use some full-blown standard scripting language for scene
>description? We could have some API that the user would talk to in order to
>tell POV-Ray what stuff to put in the scene, just as we have language
>directives now.
>
>This has several advantages:
>1. The user gets a real scripting language that can do any kind of
>        calculations or functions or whatever, and can even integrate
>        rendering with other tasks, automating something or other.
>2. The user doesn't have to learn a new language, just a new API.
>3. You get a high-quality interpeter for free. This would greatly reduce
>        the size of POV-Ray, etc.
>
>By choosing a language that has object-oriented features, you allow users
>to do all kinds of fun stuff. At present, we have '.inc' files with
>macros in them to do things. Put if they had classes in them, that
>knew how to do things, such as animating themselves, or interacting
>with others, the door is opened to many interesting and usefull
>possibilities. Imagine describing large scenes in terms of high-level
>objects that interacted and animated themeselves based on internal
>procedures. The possibilities here are great.
>
>But I digress. Of course, that which I have just briefly described could be
>accomplished using a specialized language. The advantage of a normal
>language is that everyone gets stuff for free.
>
>Anyway, my nominations for the language are (in this order):
>
>1. Ruby
>2. Python
>3. Java
>
>Look at his hypothetical Ruby snippet:
>
>
>add Camera.new Vector.new(3,5,-10), Vector.new(0,0,0)
>add PointLightSource.new Vector.new(30,30,-30), White.vector
>add Plane.new x, -2, Texture.new( CheckerPigment(Black.vector,Red.vector) )
>add Sphere.new Vector.new(0,0,0), 2, Texture.new(Yellow.pigment)
>add SkySphere.new( GradientPigment( y, Colormap.new([0,SkyBlue.vector], \
>        [1,Blue.vector])))
>render
>
>
>....Hmm, that looks a bit clunky; we'll try getting rid of the Vectors...
>
>
>add Camera.new 3,5,-10, 0,0,0
>add PointLightSource.new 30,30,-30, White
>add Plane.new x, -2, Texture.new( CheckerPigment(Black,Red) )
>add Sphere.new 0,0,0, 2, Texture.new( ColorPigment(Yellow) )
>add SkySphere.new( GradientPigment( y, [0=>SkyBlue,1=>Blue] ) )
>render
>
>....rather than:
>
>
>camera
>{
>        location <3,5,-10>
>        look_at <0,0,0>
>}
>
>light_source
>{
>        <30,30,-30>,
>        color White
>}
>
>plane
>{
>        x,-2
>        texture
>        {
>                pigment{ checker Black Red }
>        }
>}
>
>sphere
>{
>        <0,0,0>,2
>        texture
>        {
>                pigment{ color Yellow }
>        }
>}
>
>skysphere
>{
>        pigment
>        {
>                gradient y
>                color_map
>                {
>                        [0 color SkyBlue]
>                        [1 color Blue]
>                }
>        }
>}
>
>....Anyway, you get the idea of what it would look like. But it's really
>about being able to do any sort of task or calculation when making the
>scene.
>
>
>Well, maybe you've all just been enlightened with a blinding stroke of
>genius, or maybe someone else has already suggested this, or maybe it's the
>stupidest thing ever. Anyhoo, I thought I'd mention it to you who know more
>than I do. Thanks for listening.
>
>- --
>David McCabe
>http://12.225.144.95/pgpkey
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
>
>iD8DBQE9iV801bgGCL1rO04RAtLIAKDJqYTkESKHd36pK3xmkHDvsZy5gwCfc4XC
>jSWQUlpGu/fRVqHJkFZJpKA=
>=ZZQk
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

If one wishes to code in any other language all one needs to do is write the
libraires that out put the code in POVSDL. Then you can write your scene
and control pvengine any way you want.

I knwo there are things about POVSDL I would like changed but there is no
other language that truely can replace POVSDL. The idea of useing a
"standard" language would have needed to be made at the start. I already
know POVSDL and whould hate to have to change.

Keep up the very good work on POVRAY. In my opinion it is THE most powerfull
3D system available. In the last few weeks I have had a number of projects
and as I thought about how to do them I could only come to one conclusion.
Povray was the only one that would do it. No other program can handle a 30
meg heightfield ,works well with metaballs or has such a flexable and easy
to learn scripting language.


Post a reply to this message

From: Warp
Subject: Re: A thought for 4.0
Date: 21 Sep 2002 20:29:23
Message: <3d8d0ee3@news.povray.org>
(By the way, it's a good custom to not to quote the whole article you
are responding to, but only the relevant parts, or nothing at all if the
article is long and you are responding to everything.)

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -


Post a reply to this message

From: Le Forgeron
Subject: Re: A thought for 4.0
Date: 23 Sep 2002 04:53:14
Message: <3D8ED68E.1020606@free.fr>
ABX wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 10:29:44 +0200, Le Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
> 
>>I do not want to use POV to read my DVD.
>>
> 
> Sorry, but I still plan mpeg2 port ;-)



That will be ok (allowing POV to read a mpeg2 file to extract a frame to 
use as image map).
What is not ok is using POV as WinDVD, thanks to a simple scene script 
in pov SDL turning pov-renderer in a menu/mouse-driven DVD player !->
(displaying the actual movie in realtime, with sound-decoding and all 
features...)


Post a reply to this message

From: nemesis
Subject: Re: A thought for 4.0
Date: 6 Oct 2008 12:56:59
Message: <48ea435b@news.povray.org>
I think you're in the minority here.  Povray's SDL is quite simply the 
best DSL for scene creation out of any options out there -- check out 
Renderman's ribs out there or some of the stupid XML sh!t many modern 
renderers go for these days.

I like ruby, but you're ruby code is ruby code, not a sweet and simple 
DSL for scene creation.


Post a reply to this message

From: Warp
Subject: Re: A thought for 4.0
Date: 6 Oct 2008 13:21:28
Message: <48ea4918@news.povray.org>
nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I think you're in the minority here.  Povray's SDL is quite simply the 
> best DSL for scene creation out of any options out there -- check out 
> Renderman's ribs out there or some of the stupid XML sh!t many modern 
> renderers go for these days.

  Just because it's the best *existing* language doesn't mean that it
couldn't be even better...

-- 
                                                          - Warp


Post a reply to this message

From: nemesis
Subject: Re: A thought for 4.0
Date: 6 Oct 2008 13:33:30
Message: <48ea4bea$1@news.povray.org>
Warp escreveu:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> I think you're in the minority here.  Povray's SDL is quite simply the 
>> best DSL for scene creation out of any options out there -- check out 
>> Renderman's ribs out there or some of the stupid XML sh!t many modern 
>> renderers go for these days.
> 
>   Just because it's the best *existing* language doesn't mean that it
> couldn't be even better...

Oh, yes!  BTW, I just installed a news cliente here and it downloaded 
all the headers.  I didn't see the date on this one!! 2002! :P


Post a reply to this message

<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Initial 10 Messages

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.