 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
What happened to the superpatch that some people were working on? Is
it still under construction?
Shalon Wood
--
People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die.
--Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04 Apr 1998 10:47:57 -0600, dst### [at] pele mlorg wrote:
>
>What happened to the superpatch that some people were working on? Is
>it still under construction?
There were actually two projects intended to integrate several patches
into one big patch. One was my pet project, and one was Twyst's &
Jamis'. Theirs is done, and is available from Twyst's website at
http://twyst.home.ml.org . Mine isn't done yet, because I'm currently
involved in doing some difficult "real life" things. I just need to
slap some finishing touches on it and finish writing the
documentation, and it'll be ready to go.
I also want to add a couple more functions to it, and perhaps merge in
the patches for the "slope" texture modifier that was posted a few
days ago, but those things shouldn't take too long.
I had considered waiting for the official release of version 3.1 and
trying to merge it into my sources as well, but I believe I'll just
release what I have when I find the time to finish the documentation.
Thanks for your interest!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>There were actually two projects intended to integrate several patches
>into one big patch. One was my pet project, and one was Twyst's &
>Jamis'. Theirs is done, and is available from Twyst's website at
>http://twyst.home.ml.org . Mine isn't done yet, because I'm currently
>involved in doing some difficult "real life" things. I just need to
>slap some finishing touches on it and finish writing the
>documentation, and it'll be ready to go.
>
>I also want to add a couple more functions to it, and perhaps merge in
>the patches for the "slope" texture modifier that was posted a few
>days ago, but those things shouldn't take too long.
>
>I had considered waiting for the official release of version 3.1 and
>trying to merge it into my sources as well, but I believe I'll just
>release what I have when I find the time to finish the documentation.
>
>Thanks for your interest!
>
>
The problem with these various 'superpatch' compilations is that they all
have unique features :) I have THREE versions of PovRay now :)
1) The 'Official' Version
2) TMPov ( for the array and height field functions )
3) The Isosurface patch version.
Time for a new version absorbing all known patches?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 8 Apr 1998 20:44:13 -0600, "Charles Krause"
<osi### [at] cheerfulcom> wrote:
>The problem with these various 'superpatch' compilations is that they all
>have unique features :) I have THREE versions of PovRay now :)
>
>1) The 'Official' Version
>2) TMPov ( for the array and height field functions )
>3) The Isosurface patch version.
>
>Time for a new version absorbing all known patches?
That's the goal of the "superpatch." My superpatch doesn't have the
array functionality, because I haven't downloaded the source to TMPov
nor gotten the go-ahead from Twyst/Jamis on incorporating their
changes into my code, but it will have an alternative to the
height-field functions that is actually more versatile and could be
used to write a rudimentary collision-detection .INC file. My goal in
this project was to consolidate all known patches into one big patch,
then encourage others to patch it, rather than the official version.
I wrote my opinion on this matter on December 4, in povray.general.
If your newsreader allows you to, you should be able to go read that
posting, but the gist of it is that I think there should be some
central depository for the "official unofficial version" of POV, with
all current patches applied. Aspiring patch-writers should work with
that version, so as to keep the namespace clean and make getting all
the patches easier.
Eventually, maybe even the POV-Team would work with that version and
we could get closer to the model espoused by Linux, Mozilla, and other
free-software projects. A good model for the POV-Team to follow would
be Netscape's role in the Mozilla project: anyone can do anything they
want with Mozilla, the patches are kept at a central location on a
voluntary basis (you don't have to submit your patch, but you're
encouraged to) and Netscape then takes the whole body of work and
makes the official "Netscape" product using just the parts they feel
are worthy.
None of this is outside the scope of the current POVLEGAL, so perhaps
it would be sufficient for us peons to organize to create one big
patch, then humbly submit it to the POV-Team for inclusion in the next
version.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
