Hello everyone,

I've decided that it's time for POVRay to have a place to live, a
place to call home, so I'm building it a city.
The first phase of the building is a series of 9 * 9 blocks, with
roads 1 unit wide seperating them.
Phase 2 will be a park, shopping complex, residential area and
whatever else I think of.

If YOU would like to build in POVRay City mail me and I will allocate
you a plot.  You then mail me your scene file, and I will "include" it
in the city scene file.  I will put all of the scene files on my web
page so that anyone who wants to can get them and trace the city.

Anyone interested ????


HTTP://homepages.enterprise.net/michaelkent
e-mail mic### [at] enterprisenet
Fidonet 2:258/69.10

Post a reply to this message

Michael Kent wrote:
> 
> Hello everyone,
> 
> I've decided that it's time for POVRay to have a place to live, a
> place to call home, so I'm building it a city.
> The first phase of the building is a series of 9 * 9 blocks, with
> roads 1 unit wide seperating them.
> Phase 2 will be a park, shopping complex, residential area and
> whatever else I think of.
> 
> If YOU would like to build in POVRay City mail me and I will allocate
> you a plot.  You then mail me your scene file, and I will "include" it
> in the city scene file.  I will put all of the scene files on my web
> page so that anyone who wants to can get them and trace the city.
> 
> Anyone interested ????
> 
> HTTP://homepages.enterprise.net/michaelkent
> e-mail mic### [at] enterprisenet
> Fidonet 2:258/69.10




Cute idea.   I've been know to waste time on far more frivilous things,
so why not?   Where do I get my builder's license?  


-- 
Daren Scot Wilson
dar### [at] pipelinecom
www.newcolor.com

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 07 Dec 1997 05:17:18 -0500, Daren Scot Wilson
<dar### [at] pipelinecom> wrote:

>Michael Kent wrote:
>> 
>> Hello everyone,
>> 
>> I've decided that it's time for POVRay to have a place to live, a
>
>Cute idea.   I've been know to waste time on far more frivilous things,
>so why not?   Where do I get my builder's license?  
>
Glad to see that you have understood the spirit of the idea :-))

I hereby grant you building permission for anything you want in the
location currently ocupied by the box:-
box{<.5,2,.5> <9.5,-0.01,9.5>texture{PinkAlabaster}translate
<10,0,-10>}
in the following rough layout script.

I suggest a scale of about 1unit = 25 metres

Enjoy!!

Michael

_____________________________________

// Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer Scene Description File
// File: city.pov
// Vers: 3
// Desc: Basic City Plan
// Date: 04/12/1997
// Auth: Michael Kent
// Contact: mic### [at] enterprisenet or Fidonet 2:258/69.10


#include "colors.inc"
#include "textures.inc"
#include "stones.inc"

camera
{
  location  <5.0 , 7.0 ,-20>
    up        y
  right     4/3*x
  look_at   <5.0 , 0.0 , 0.0>
}

light_source {  0*x  color red 1.0  green 1.0  blue 1.0 translate <0.0
, 100.0 ,-50.0>}

// The roads.

#declare Count=-50
#while (Count <=50)
box{<-50,0.1,-0.5> <50,-0.01,0.5>texture{T_Grnt15}translate
<0,0,Count>}
box{<-.5,0.1,-50> <.5,-0.01,50>texture{T_Grnt15}translate <Count,0,0>}
#declare Count=Count +10
#end

box{<.5,.5,.5> <9.5,-0.01,9.5>texture{PinkAlabaster}translate <0,0,0>}
box{<1,4,1> <9,-0.01,9>texture{PinkAlabaster}translate <0,0,0>}
box{<3,9,3> <7,-0.01,7>texture{PinkAlabaster}translate <0,0,0>}

box{<.5,5,.5> <9.5,-0.01,9.5>texture{PinkAlabaster}translate
<-20,0,10>}
box{<.5,2,.5> <9.5,-0.01,9.5>texture{PinkAlabaster}translate
<10,0,-10>}
box{<.5,1,.5> <9.5,-0.01,9.5>texture{PinkAlabaster}translate
<-10,0,0>}

plane { y, 0 pigment {color rgb <0.1,0.8,0.1>}}

sky_sphere
{
  pigment
  {
    gradient y
    color_map { [0.0 color blue 0.6] [1.0 color rgb 1] }
  }
}

HTTP://homepages.enterprise.net/michaelkent
e-mail mic### [at] enterprisenet
Fidonet 2:258/69.10

Post a reply to this message

Michael Kent wrote:

> Glad to see that you have understood the spirit of the idea :-))
> 
> I hereby grant you building permission for anything you want in the
> location currently ocupied by the box:-
> box{<.5,2,.5> <9.5,-0.01,9.5>texture{PinkAlabaster}translate
> <10,0,-10>} ....

Um, do I hafta hire only Union workers?  And who do I bribe so I can
make illegal sewer connections?  :>)


-- 
Daren Scot Wilson
dar### [at] pipelinecom
www.newcolor.com
------
"Knowledge is power -- Not sharing knowledge is an abuse of power."

Post a reply to this message

Hi Daren,

On Sun, 07 Dec 1997 17:28:18 -0500, Daren Scot Wilson
<dar### [at] pipelinecom> wrote:

>
>Um, do I hafta hire only Union workers?  And who do I bribe so I can
>make illegal sewer connections?  :>)

Nope, and me of course!!

I've now got a few bits on the webpage, so check out :
http://homepages.enterprise.net/michaelkent/povraycity/
when you get a chance.

Bye for now

Michael
HTTP://homepages.enterprise.net/michaelkent
e-mail mic### [at] enterprisenet
Fidonet 2:258/69.10

Post a reply to this message

CITY PLANNERS,

I've got a 1 meter scale city.pov file and associated files, and am
awaiting o.k. from Michael.  In the meantime, if anyone wants to play
with a 1 meter set of roads and plain, send me an email and I'll reply
with the zip file.

Regards,
Robert J Becraft
aka cas### [at] aolcom

Post a reply to this message

Robert J Becraft wrote:
> 
> CITY PLANNERS,
> 
> I've got a 1 meter scale city.pov file and associated files, and am
> awaiting o.k. from Michael.  In the meantime, if anyone wants to play
> with a 1 meter set of roads and plain, send me an email and I'll reply
> with the zip file.
> 
> Regards,
> Robert J Becraft
> aka cas### [at] aolcom

Count me in.

bri### [at] emmacom

Post a reply to this message

Michael Kent wrote in message <348a7620.236262@news.povray.org>...

>I suggest a scale of about 1unit = 25 metres

I just checked out your web page and it sez that one unit = one meter.
Hunh???????

Eric

--
"Either this man is dead or my watch has stopped."
- Groucho Marx

http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Heights/2354/
http://www.datasync.com/~reba/

Post a reply to this message

The Y axis is UP?  What country did YOU study geometry in? <G> This is
going to ruddy well make things difficult to produce in Moray, you know.

I'd like a plot in this little burg of yours, but I'm afraid that it'll
never work since I'll be using Moray.

jbm!

Post a reply to this message

For as long as I can remember, POV-Ray has had the Y axis up and left handed
coordinates.  Although that contradicts traditional mathematical 3-space, it
is the set used in many renderers and modelers.  I don't know the reason for
sure, but i'm guess it's because most people are more comfortable with
two-dimensional cartesian coordinates with y being up and x being negative
on the left and positive on the right.  If you've heard of the term
z-buffering, it's a technique for buffering 3-d information in relation to
the foreground and background.  Anyway, If modeling with the y axis up is a
problem in moray, go ahead and model with the z axis up.  When you're done,
export your scene to a pov file.  Edit the pov file with a text editor and
wrap the whole thing in a union.  Inside the closing brace of the union that
you added to the scene, add a rotation and it will spin your whole scene so
that the y-axis is up in your scene.  It shouldn't hinder your modeling at
all.  Good luck!

Ken

Brook Monroe wrote in message <348E0179.F4C8E1F7@worldnet.att.net>...
>The Y axis is UP?  What country did YOU study geometry in? <G> This is
>going to ruddy well make things difficult to produce in Moray, you know.
>
>I'd like a plot in this little burg of yours, but I'm afraid that it'll
>never work since I'll be using Moray.
>
>jbm!
>

Post a reply to this message

Brook Monroe wrote:
> 
> The Y axis is UP?  What country did YOU study geometry in? <G> This is
> going to ruddy well make things difficult to produce in Moray, you know.

Yeah, it is....x is left-right, z is forward-back (into-outof), and y is
up-down....even maths geometry bears this out, on a 2d graph, x is
horizontal, y is vertical...if you add a third axis it Must be
forward/backwards.
-- 
** The only good politician is a dead politician.
** Email me: bay### [at] coastlinkcomau
** Believe 1% of what you see or hear.
** Always read between the lines.

Post a reply to this message

Actually, traditional cartesian coordinates in 3-space have a vertical z
axis with x going in and out and y left to right.

Ken

BearFace wrote in message <348### [at] coastlinkcomau>...
>Brook Monroe wrote:
>>
>> The Y axis is UP?  What country did YOU study geometry in? <G> This is
>> going to ruddy well make things difficult to produce in Moray, you know.
>
>Yeah, it is....x is left-right, z is forward-back (into-outof), and y is
>up-down....even maths geometry bears this out, on a 2d graph, x is
>horizontal, y is vertical...if you add a third axis it Must be
>forward/backwards.
>--
>** The only good politician is a dead politician.
>** Email me: bay### [at] coastlinkcomau
>** Believe 1% of what you see or hear.
>** Always read between the lines.

Post a reply to this message

BearFace wrote:

> Brook Monroe wrote:
> >
> > The Y axis is UP?  What country did YOU study geometry in? <G> This is
> > going to ruddy well make things difficult to produce in Moray, you know.
>
> Yeah, it is....x is left-right, z is forward-back (into-outof), and y is
> up-down....even maths geometry bears this out, on a 2d graph, x is
> horizontal, y is vertical...if you add a third axis it Must be
> forward/backwards.
> --
> ** The only good politician is a dead politician.
> ** Email me: bay### [at] coastlinkcomau
> ** Believe 1% of what you see or hear.
> ** Always read between the lines.

  I disagree.  The Cartesian plane is 2D, x/y, traditionally considered to be
a flat horizontal surface (read "Flatland"), and we (the 3D folks) inhabit the
domains spread out along the Z axis.  To look at it another way, X is
east-west, Y is north-south, and Z is in the atmosphere or underground.  Don't
get all hornswoggled because your algebra teacher drew graphs on the
blackboard.

jbm!

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 09 Dec 1997 21:42:01 -0500, Brook Monroe
<rin### [at] worldnetattnet> wrote:

>The Y axis is UP?  What country did YOU study geometry in? <G> This is
>going to ruddy well make things difficult to produce in Moray, you know.
>

Well, you know, that was my first thought.  I'm a long time user and
strong supporter of MORAY.   And although Y=UP is a bit alien to me
now too, it shouldn't be a problem.  I intend to use MORAY (for
Windows) and just build everything so that Y is UP, even if MORAY
thinks Z is up.   I could be wrong --- I havn't tried it yet --- but
it should work.


-----------
George Hunt --- Raytracer Obsessivo
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/lightsword
102### [at] compuservecom
-----------

Post a reply to this message

Up until today I was doing my geometry wrong also, until I asked my math
teacher which was axis should be pointing.

It really shouldn't be that much trouble.  Just model it in Moray like you
always would, but keep it centered on <0,0,0>.  You can then fix it with a
couple rotate and translate commands.

Being an American, using the metric system (1 unit = 25 meters) will be alien
to me as well.  That is not so easily fixed.

Don't be suprised if my residence is scaled wrong. : )

~Kardal~

George Hunt wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Dec 1997 21:42:01 -0500, Brook Monroe
> <rin### [at] worldnetattnet> wrote:
>
> >The Y axis is UP?  What country did YOU study geometry in? <G> This is
> >going to ruddy well make things difficult to produce in Moray, you know.
> >
>
> Well, you know, that was my first thought.  I'm a long time user and
> strong supporter of MORAY.   And although Y=UP is a bit alien to me
> now too, it shouldn't be a problem.  I intend to use MORAY (for
> Windows) and just build everything so that Y is UP, even if MORAY
> thinks Z is up.   I could be wrong --- I havn't tried it yet --- but
> it should work.
>
> -----------
> George Hunt --- Raytracer Obsessivo
> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/lightsword
> 102### [at] compuservecom
> -----------

Post a reply to this message

Just work in feet or something and then add a final scale statement to
change it to 1 unit=25 meters.  If you work with 1 unit = 1 foot, then when
you're done, scale your scene by 82.020997 and that should give you 1 unit =
25 meters.

Ken


Kardal wrote in message <348F06AD.E01D8D9E@geocities.com>...
>
>Being an American, using the metric system (1 unit = 25 meters) will be
alien
>to me as well.  That is not so easily fixed.
>
>Don't be suprised if my residence is scaled wrong. : )
>
>~Kardal~
>
>George Hunt wrote:
>

Post a reply to this message

Hi Pals,

Sorry to say you are all besides the point.
POV-Ray handles very well both left and right handed systems, just check
your docs, in WinPov 3.01 check sections :
==> 4.1.1 Understanding POV-Ray's Coordinate System
and
==>7.4.4.5.2 Handedness

That being said, a choice as been made by the main contractor to build a
left handed world, not a single problem, the one who builds a right
handed system will simply have to scale his model to <1, 1, -1> then
rotate it appropriately so that it matches the right directions, then
translate to the plot - easy.

Hope this helps,
Al.


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
=-=-=-=-= ANTI SPAM / ANTI ARROSAGE COMMERCIAL : 
Pour me répondre, veuillez enlever les deux moins de mon adresse.
To answer me, please take out both minus signs from my address.

Post a reply to this message

Alain CULOS wrote:

> Hi Pals,
>
> Sorry to say you are all besides the point.

Principles are never besides the point.

> POV-Ray handles very well both left and right handed systems, just check
> your docs, in WinPov 3.01 check sections :
> ==> 4.1.1 Understanding POV-Ray's Coordinate System
> and
> ==>7.4.4.5.2 Handedness
>

Whatever.

> That being said, a choice as been made by the main contractor to build a
> left handed world, not a single problem, the one who builds a right
> handed system will simply have to scale his model to <1, 1, -1> then
> rotate it appropriately so that it matches the right directions, then
> translate to the plot - easy.
>

Great, then I'll just send my scene files to you and you can do it.  It's
already going to be hard enough to create something at the microscopic scale
of 1 unit = 25m (= 82 ft), without having to re-do the scaling and rotation
at the end.

And I still say Z is altitude.

jbm!

Post a reply to this message

Create your scene with any orientation or scale you would like to.  Make one
unit equal to a mile if you want.  Just make sure you relate 1 unit to some
known measurement, and I'LL be glad to rerotate your scene and scale it to
match the specs.  The specifications should have no impact whatsoever on
your modeling.

Ken


Brook Monroe wrote in message <3490208C.C0FE5858@worldnet.att.net>...
>
>
>Alain CULOS wrote:
>
>> Hi Pals,
>>
>> Sorry to say you are all besides the point.
>
>Principles are never besides the point.
>
>> POV-Ray handles very well both left and right handed systems, just check
>> your docs, in WinPov 3.01 check sections :
>> ==> 4.1.1 Understanding POV-Ray's Coordinate System
>> and
>> ==>7.4.4.5.2 Handedness
>>
>
>Whatever.
>
>> That being said, a choice as been made by the main contractor to build a
>> left handed world, not a single problem, the one who builds a right
>> handed system will simply have to scale his model to <1, 1, -1> then
>> rotate it appropriately so that it matches the right directions, then
>> translate to the plot - easy.
>>
>
>Great, then I'll just send my scene files to you and you can do it.  It's
>already going to be hard enough to create something at the microscopic
scale
>of 1 unit = 25m (= 82 ft), without having to re-do the scaling and rotation
>at the end.
>
>And I still say Z is altitude.
>
>jbm!
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Ken was faster than me on that one, but the *EASY* way out is do your
scene as he says in whatever you like, for instance you want :
1ft=1unit
Z=up
Y=into the screen
X=right
this is a right handed coordinate system

Embed your whole construction into an object :

/*
  world in left handed coordinates, unit = 25 metres
  y = up
  x = right
  z = into the screen
*/
object
{
   /*
       your whole construction goes there,
       it is meant to be starting at <0, 0, 0>
       and extend as far as <738, 738, 164>
       unit in feet
  */
  rotate 90*x
  // that changes :
  // = up(z) to up(-y)
  // = right(x) is preserved
  // = into the screen(z) to into the screen(y)

  scale <1, 1, -1>/82
  // to bring your up(-y) to up(y) and
  // change the scale to 1unit=25metres

  translate to <0.5, -0.01, 0.5>
  // to put it into the first slot allocated,
  // change that translation for another slot
}

I personally find this sort of things easy, if you don't just let me
know exactly what you want and I'll tell you the transformations.

Cherio,
Al.

Brook Monroe wrote:

> Alain CULOS wrote:
>
> > Hi Pals,
> >
> > Sorry to say you are all besides the point.
>
> Principles are never besides the point.
>
> > POV-Ray handles very well both left and right handed systems, just check
> > your docs, in WinPov 3.01 check sections :
> > ==> 4.1.1 Understanding POV-Ray's Coordinate System
> > and
> > ==>7.4.4.5.2 Handedness
> >
>
> Whatever.
>
> > That being said, a choice as been made by the main contractor to build a
> > left handed world, not a single problem, the one who builds a right
> > handed system will simply have to scale his model to <1, 1, -1> then
> > rotate it appropriately so that it matches the right directions, then
> > translate to the plot - easy.
> >
>
> Great, then I'll just send my scene files to you and you can do it.  It's
> already going to be hard enough to create something at the microscopic scale
> of 1 unit = 25m (= 82 ft), without having to re-do the scaling and rotation
> at the end.
>
> And I still say Z is altitude.
>
> jbm!

Post a reply to this message

To get around your problem, maybe this will help: 1 unit is (about) 10
inches.

Corné Bogaarts
-- 
Please also reply by E-mail.
Please remove the 'no spam' # from my address when replying by E-mail

Brook Monroe <rin### [at] worldnetattnet> schreef in artikel
<3490208C.C0FE5858@worldnet.att.net>...
> 
> 
> Alain CULOS wrote:
> 
> > Hi Pals,
> >
> > Sorry to say you are all besides the point.
> 
> Principles are never besides the point.
> 
> > POV-Ray handles very well both left and right handed systems, just
check
> > your docs, in WinPov 3.01 check sections :
> > ==> 4.1.1 Understanding POV-Ray's Coordinate System
> > and
> > ==>7.4.4.5.2 Handedness
> >
> 
> Whatever.
> 
> > That being said, a choice as been made by the main contractor to build
a
> > left handed world, not a single problem, the one who builds a right
> > handed system will simply have to scale his model to <1, 1, -1> then
> > rotate it appropriately so that it matches the right directions, then
> > translate to the plot - easy.
> >
> 
> Great, then I'll just send my scene files to you and you can do it.  It's
> already going to be hard enough to create something at the microscopic
scale
> of 1 unit = 25m (= 82 ft), without having to re-do the scaling and
rotation
> at the end.
> 
> And I still say Z is altitude.
> 
> jbm!
> 
> 
> 
>

Post a reply to this message

The fun everyone is having.  GEESH!

I just put my monitor on the floor facing up and sit really, really
close.  Z is up and working in miniture is easy.

Post a reply to this message

Croyd wrote:
> 
> The fun everyone is having.  GEESH!
> 
> I just put my monitor on the floor facing up and sit really, really
> close.  Z is up and working in miniture is easy.

Actually, wouldn't you need to hang it from the ceiling to be accurate??

Robert J Becraft
aka cas### [at] aolcom  <--- the real me.

Post a reply to this message

That could lead to some interesting headlines:  Man killed after monitor
falls from the sky! ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Kardal wrote:

> Up until today I was doing my geometry wrong also, until I asked my math
> teacher which was axis should be pointing.
>
> It really shouldn't be that much trouble.  Just model it in Moray like you
> always would, but keep it centered on <0,0,0>.  You can then fix it with a
> couple rotate and translate commands.
>
> Being an American, using the metric system (1 unit = 25 meters) will be alien
> to me as well.  That is not so easily fixed.
>
> Don't be suprised if my residence is scaled wrong. : )
>
> ~Kardal~
>

Your geometry teacher supported the idea that the Y axis is altitude in a 3-axis
system?  No wonder the American education system is going to Hell...<G>

I'm not happy with 1 unit=25 meters, either.  I usually use a 1 unit = 1 meter or
1 unit = 1 foot scale (depending on what I'm creating); our entire house would
fit into 1/5 of a unit square at his scale.  I'm not used to drawing things so
small.  That's a lot of detail to cram into a small space, I'm thinking.

jbm!

Post a reply to this message

Brook Monroe wrote:

> Your geometry teacher supported the idea that the Y axis is altitude in a 3-axis
> system?  No wonder the American education system is going to Hell...<G>
>
> I'm not happy with 1 unit=25 meters, either.  I usually use a 1 unit = 1 meter or
> 1 unit = 1 foot scale (depending on what I'm creating); our entire house would
> fit into 1/5 of a unit square at his scale.  I'm not used to drawing things so
> small.  That's a lot of detail to cram into a small space, I'm thinking.
>
> jbm!

I agree with you 100%!  : )

It really should be 1 unit = 1 meter or whatever, even if you do have 5 or 6 digit
numbers after the city starts to get put together, it will make the dimesions seem
more realistic.  This should be fixed asap before this city gets set up too much.

Also, the city uses an ordinary flat plane for the ground.  This could be a problem
if you want a basement.  I think it would be better if you had to have a green cube
underneath your house and you could difference it as needed.  Plus, it adds the
creativity options of being able to set up a desert palace or a volcano fortress by
changing the color and texture of the ground.  Hmm...

~Kardal~

Post a reply to this message

Yah, I'm an american too and the metric stuff always gets me.  so what
i did was make a few defines, as follows:

  // in case i want to conform with the world...
  #declare jgbMeter      = 1/25
  #declare jgbCentimeter = jgbMeter * 0.01
  #declare jgbMillimeter = jgbMeter * 0.001

  // in case i don't... :)
  #declare jgbFoot       = jgbMeter / 3.281
  #declare jgbYard       = jgbFoot * 3
  #declare jgbInch       = jgbFoot / 12

(my initials are jgb, so i append all my variables for my plot with them
so that I can avoid conflicts with someone elses variables).  Then,
whenever I specify sizes & translations & positions, I just say, for
examples, "5*jgbFoot" and voila! i get five feet in the scale
specified.  and i can even mix metric and imperial since the definition
of jgbFoot is based on the definition of jgbMeter.

Anyway.  Just a suggestion i thought might help some people, since it
has saved my hide many times!

- ciao!

Jamis Buck
buc### [at] csbyuedu

Kardal wrote:
> 
> Up until today I was doing my geometry wrong also, until I asked my math
> teacher which was axis should be pointing.
> 
> It really shouldn't be that much trouble.  Just model it in Moray like you
> always would, but keep it centered on <0,0,0>.  You can then fix it with a
> couple rotate and translate commands.
> 
> Being an American, using the metric system (1 unit = 25 meters) will be alien
> to me as well.  That is not so easily fixed.
> 
> Don't be suprised if my residence is scaled wrong. : )
> 
> ~Kardal~
> 
> George Hunt wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 09 Dec 1997 21:42:01 -0500, Brook Monroe
> > <rin### [at] worldnetattnet> wrote:
> >
> > >The Y axis is UP?  What country did YOU study geometry in? <G> This is
> > >going to ruddy well make things difficult to produce in Moray, you know.
> > >
> >
> > Well, you know, that was my first thought.  I'm a long time user and
> > strong supporter of MORAY.   And although Y=UP is a bit alien to me
> > now too, it shouldn't be a problem.  I intend to use MORAY (for
> > Windows) and just build everything so that Y is UP, even if MORAY
> > thinks Z is up.   I could be wrong --- I havn't tried it yet --- but
> > it should work.
> >
> > -----------
> > George Hunt --- Raytracer Obsessivo
> > http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/lightsword
> > 102### [at] compuservecom
> > -----------

Post a reply to this message

Kardal wrote:
> 
> Up until today I was doing my geometry wrong also, until I asked my math
> teacher which was axis should be pointing.
> 

??????
There is no "correct" way - just go with the rules specified, as you
say, all it does is give you a tiny bit of hassle at the end before you
post your efforts.

> It really shouldn't be that much trouble.  Just model it in Moray like you
> always would, but keep it centered on <0,0,0>.  You can then fix it with a
> couple rotate and translate commands.
> 
> Being an American, using the metric system (1 unit = 25 meters) will be alien
> to me as well.  That is not so easily fixed.

Surely you realise that scaling is just arbitary - if you are using 1
metre not 25, then the whole scene (probably unioned) simply requires a
"scale 1/25".

Mind you, thats all a bit daft now, as the scale has been changed to 1
unit = 1 metre anyway.

> 
> Don't be suprised if my residence is scaled wrong. : )
> 
> ~Kardal~
> 

i'm actualy using my dads machine at the minute, and my own address is
rox### [at] geocitiescom

Regards Rob

Post a reply to this message

Dave Oxspring wrote:

> Surely you realise that scaling is just arbitary - if you are using 1
> metre not 25, then the whole scene (probably unioned) simply requires a
> "scale 1/25".

That's what I meant.

> Mind you, thats all a bit daft now, as the scale has been changed to 1
> unit = 1 metre anyway.

You should check the date on the message you reply to before wording a sentence
that way.

> >
> > Don't be suprised if my residence is scaled wrong. : )
> >
> > ~Kardal~
> >
>
> i'm actualy using my dads machine at the minute, and my own address is
> rox### [at] geocitiescom
>
> Regards Rob

 ~Kardal~

Post a reply to this message

George Hunt wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Dec 1997 21:42:01 -0500, Brook Monroe
> <rin### [at] worldnetattnet> wrote:
>
> >The Y axis is UP?  What country did YOU study geometry in? <G> This is
> >going to ruddy well make things difficult to produce in Moray, you know.
> >
>
> Well, you know, that was my first thought.  I'm a long time user and
> strong supporter of MORAY.   And although Y=UP is a bit alien to me
> now too, it shouldn't be a problem.  I intend to use MORAY (for
> Windows) and just build everything so that Y is UP, even if MORAY
> thinks Z is up.   I could be wrong --- I havn't tried it yet --- but
> it should work.
>
> -----------

Well, it MIGHT--but that don't make it right.  Most navigational systems use
X/Y for surface coordinates and Z for altitudes.  Maybe I'm just being too,
um, retentive here, but it bothers me.

jbm!

Post a reply to this message

Brook Monroe wrote:
> 
> The Y axis is UP?  What country did YOU study geometry in? <G> This is
> going to ruddy well make things difficult to produce in Moray, you know.
> 

Yes.  Hold up sheet of paper.  Draw x-y graph... x goes across the
bottom, y goes up the page... now add z... that goes on sheets of paper
placed in front of or behind your first page.  

Y is UP.

Regards,
Robert J Becraft
aka cas### [at] aolcom

Post a reply to this message

Robert J Becraft wrote:
> 
> Brook Monroe wrote:
> >
> > The Y axis is UP?  What country did YOU study geometry in? <G> This is
> > going to ruddy well make things difficult to produce in Moray, you know.
> >
> 
> Yes.  Hold up sheet of paper.  Draw x-y graph... x goes across the
> bottom, y goes up the page... now add z... that goes on sheets of paper
> placed in front of or behind your first page.
> 
> Y is UP.
> 
> Regards,
> Robert J Becraft
> aka cas### [at] aolcom

Personally I agree - Up with Y.

The only thing is that there is no sensible argument either way: so to
counter my own opinion, and your argument, lets say you leave this piece
of paper on the table where you drew your X and Y axis. Surely the
sensible place for the Z is perpendicular to the other two lines heading
Up.

My argument is asfloorless as the previous one, and therfore equally
floored.

Think on...

Rob

(actually rox### [at] geocitiescom)

Post a reply to this message

Dave Oxspring wrote:

> Robert J Becraft wrote:
> >
> > Brook Monroe wrote:
> > >
> > > The Y axis is UP?  What country did YOU study geometry in? <G> This is
> > > going to ruddy well make things difficult to produce in Moray, you know.
> > >
> >
> > Yes.  Hold up sheet of paper.  Draw x-y graph... x goes across the
> > bottom, y goes up the page... now add z... that goes on sheets of paper
> > placed in front of or behind your first page.
> >
> > Y is UP.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Robert J Becraft
> > aka cas### [at] aolcom
>
> Personally I agree - Up with Y.
>
> The only thing is that there is no sensible argument either way: so to
> counter my own opinion, and your argument, lets say you leave this piece
> of paper on the table where you drew your X and Y axis. Surely the
> sensible place for the Z is perpendicular to the other two lines heading
> Up.
>
> My argument is asfloorless as the previous one, and therfore equally
> floored.
>
> Think on...
>
> Rob
>
> (actually rox### [at] geocitiescom)

  BearFace and I have agreed that he and I both are right, that Z is up AND that
Y is up, and from now on, we're just going to split the difference and say X is
up, just to keep things simple. <G>

jbm!

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 28 Dec 1997 23:11:37 -0500, Brook Monroe
<rin### [at] worldnetattnet> wrote:

>  BearFace and I have agreed that he and I both are right, that Z is up AND that
>Y is up, and from now on, we're just going to split the difference and say X is
>up, just to keep things simple. <G>

Why not just add in a W vector?

Post a reply to this message

Daniel Beeston wrote in message <34a84806.4540198@news.povray.org>...

>Why not just add in a W vector?


I think the 4th vector is T (time).

Eric Freeman

--
"Either this man is dead or my watch has stopped."
- Groucho Marx

http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Heights/2354/
http://www.datasync.com/~reba/

Post a reply to this message

And we already have that in POV

Corné
-- 
Please also reply by E-mail.
Please remove the 'no spam' # from my address when replying by E-mail

Eric Freeman <eri### [at] geocitiescom> schreef in artikel
<34c7da88.0@news.povray.org>...
> 
> Daniel Beeston wrote in message <34a84806.4540198@news.povray.org>...
> 
> >Why not just add in a W vector?
> 
> 
> I think the 4th vector is T (time).
> 
> Eric Freeman
> 
> --
> "Either this man is dead or my watch has stopped."
> - Groucho Marx
> 
> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Heights/2354/
> http://www.datasync.com/~reba/
> 
> 
> 
>

Post a reply to this message

Robert J Becraft wrote:

> Brook Monroe wrote:
> >
> > The Y axis is UP?  What country did YOU study geometry in? <G> This is
> > going to ruddy well make things difficult to produce in Moray, you know.
> >
>
> Yes.  Hold up sheet of paper.  Draw x-y graph... x goes across the
> bottom, y goes up the page... now add z... that goes on sheets of paper
> placed in front of or behind your first page.
>
> Y is UP.
>
> Regards,
> Robert J Becraft
> aka cas### [at] aolcom

  Study format of U.S. Geological Survey data.  X and Y comprise map surface,
Z is altitude.  We're building a city--geography, not geometry. I rest my
case.

jbm!

Post a reply to this message

Brook Monroe wrote:

> Robert J Becraft wrote:
>
> > Brook Monroe wrote:
> > >
> > > The Y axis is UP?  What country did YOU study geometry in? <G> This is
> > > going to ruddy well make things difficult to produce in Moray, you know.
> > >
> >
> > Yes.  Hold up sheet of paper.  Draw x-y graph... x goes across the
> > bottom, y goes up the page... now add z... that goes on sheets of paper
> > placed in front of or behind your first page.
> >
> > Y is UP.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Robert J Becraft
> > aka cas### [at] aolcom
>
>   Study format of U.S. Geological Survey data.  X and Y comprise map surface,
> Z is altitude.  We're building a city--geography, not geometry. I rest my
> case.
>
> jbm!

 I say who cares.  What's important is that our scenes look good.

Maybe there should be a separate POV-City for those who want to do it the other
way.  I'd be willing to manage it, and I could usually update it once a day, if
needed.

Opinions?

~Kardal~

http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2352/povpage.html

Post a reply to this message

Just some ideas I have.....

So have it so that everybody uses the vartiable "Detail" to be able to
remove parts, or the detail of the parts of their scene,
Ie, have say detail = 1 to be the highest, and so one down.
so for my current scene I could say something like
#if(Detail <3)
    do the fence
#else
   do some boxes that approximate the fence
#end
So if the Detail level is 2 or more then the fence will be created in all of
it's glory, or just four boxes that will go where the fence is.
Now if all the plots use the same method for the detail, then you could have
the Detail level defined at the top and have the value trickle down through
the plots.
Another way of doing the detail, so that everybody stays with in the same
boundies, would to make the detail level a distance, so if this part of the
plot is only move into the higher detail level if the camera is within  X
units of the object.
To do this, have the camera position defined as a vector = CameraPos
Then inside each plot use the vlength(thisobjectpos-CameraPos) to provide a
dist from the object inside the plot to the camera, so with the above
example I could change that to,
#if(vlength(FencePos-CameraPos)<5) // 5 units
    lets show the whole fence
#else
    just use the less detailed version
#end
Anyway this is just an idea.......
Now for something slightly different.....
For a river... Would this work...
Create a heightfield, flip it upside down. This would now define the river
bed.
Intersect it with a blue box that has been textured etc, and this would give
the water flowing through the river. I think ??? Not sure . Haven't tried...

Now for the axis bit.  I use the left-handed system, as I have always used a
text editor, and never bothered with a modeler. For me I have always thought
of Y as height, Don't know why, just have so for me I find it easier that
way.

And for the diminsions - I use 1 unit = 1 meter, so to make it work within
the system of 1 unit = 25 meters, I have defined a var called ScaleValue = 1
/25, and at the bottom of my file put

#declare FransPlot =
union {
    object {bit1}
    object {bit2}
    .......
    scale ScaleValue
    translate PlotPos
}

Now when I'm testing my plot I define a var called Testing and use in my
plot file
#ifdef(Testing)
    #declare ScaleValue = 1
#else
    #declare ScaleValue = 1/25
#end

etc.

BTW the usable unit range I have found in POVRay is ~ 1,000,000

Objects that are further than 1,000,000 units away from the camera
disappear, no matter how large they are. Most of the time for a small object
when it is 1,000,000 units away you wouldn't be able to see it anyway, but
if there is a large object like (eg a sun/planet) then suddenly is goes
away. I don't know yet what the smallest part of a unit that is useable, but
I don't think 25 meters to 1 unit is unrealistic. This should mean that you
could model down to around the 1cm region, or (.00004 of a unit), and that
is alot more resolution than I will probably need.

Also if you wanted to do a more detailed part of your own plot on your own
page, then change the above ScaleValue to 1 and render and wot ever you
modeled at.

Just my thoughts on the subject

Till next time.... Fran.

Post a reply to this message

Great thinking, suits me fine if ever I'm going to design a plot.
But young lads not up to that sort of thinking might burn a fuse there
;-) ye know who I'm talking about I guess.


Fran Firman wrote:

> #if(Detail <3)
>     do the fence
> #else
>    do some boxes that approximate the fence
> #end



> #if(vlength(FencePos-CameraPos)<5) // 5 units
>     lets show the whole fence
> #else
>     just use the less detailed version
> #end

Post a reply to this message

Here's another issue that may get us before it's over --- memory.

It's very easy to create a scene --- one building, let alone a whole
city! --- that can consume all available memory even on a well endowed
machine.  Any good trees or plants will definitely be a problem.

I think that it's important to stress to all of the "builders" to be
frugal in their designs.  Perhaps some hard limitations on how much
the "Peak Memory Allocated" value in POV can go up when their scene is
included in a benchmark/baseline file (such as your basic city file
with no one else's scene's included).

Another possiblity, although not a simple one, is to establish a
standard for LOD (Level of Detail) control in the scene and all of its
components.  In such a scheme, when the camera position was mor than a
certain distance away from a given object (or perhaps a whole block)
that object (or in the case of blocks, multiple objects in that block)
would either not be parsed into the scene or would have simpler, less
detailed objects parsed in.   This would allow greater freedom in
creating detailed, memory-pig objects that could be seen in a close-up
render ( or a  fly-through or a walk-through ).  but would not consume
memory when it wasn't necessary.

Perhaps someone out there has already worked out the details of a LOD
control mechanism in POV that we could adopt.

  George

-----------
George Hunt --- Raytracer Obsessivo
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/lightsword
102### [at] compuservecom
-----------

Post a reply to this message

Hi Everyone,

Well, lots of ideas and opinions have been put forward here, and I
would like to gather them all together before changing the rules for
POVRayCity.  The main issues, as I see it are :-

1: Scale.  Is 1 unit =25m to tight?  If so what about 1 unit = 10 m,
or  1 unit = 1 m.?

2: Detail level.  I understand and share the concerns about the amount
of detail, and how this could affect rendering as the city grows.
Especially, as has been mentioned, when people start to grow trees
etc.  Personally I favour the idea of "distance from camera" related
detail levels,( as described by Fran Firman) but it would have to be
done in such a manner that relatively inexperienced contributors could
understand.  I also think that the "distance would have to be
definable in one place so that people can easily tweak it to suit.

3: The Plane (grass in the basement)  I'll cut a hole in it, and give
a box as a standard floor which people can cut through and build
around as they wish.

4: Are the plots the right size ?  At current scale they are about 225
m square.

5: It has been pointed out that excluding image maps will be a real
pain for certain things.  How best can these be controlled so as to
avoid duplicate file names?

6: There are several include files which people heve written and
released for public use.  I am happy for these to be included in the
baseline to save people duplicating them, and to make it easier for
everyone in general.
I am happy to add anything that a contributor asks for, as long as the
author has no objections, assuming that it is not too vast.

Good ideas are always welcome, and may be stolen if not nailed down
:-))

Bye for now,

Michael

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 12 Dec 1997 21:41:10 GMT, mic### [at] enterprisenet (Michael
Kent) wrote:

>5: It has been pointed out that excluding image maps will be a real
>pain for certain things.  How best can these be controlled so as to
>avoid duplicate file names?
I would suggest two things.  One is that all submissions be in a zip
file, even if it is is only one file.  Second, the main directory for
the project would contain only the main scene file and any common
includes that you decide to make part of the project.  Each
contributor would have a single subdirectory off of that main
directory and all files originating with a given author would exist in
his or her directory.

  This eliminates the problem of filename collision, allows a good way
of segregating each contributors pieces of the project and it is
easily facilitated by the ZIP file idea using the "save extra folders
info" (at least that's what it's called in WinZip32 




>1: Scale.  Is 1 unit =25m to tight?  If so what about 1 unit = 10 m,
>or  1 unit = 1 m.?

If those are the choices, I'd go with the last one, 1unit = 1 m.

>2....  I also think that the "distance would have to be
>definable in one place so that people can easily tweak it to suit.

Not sure what you mean by this.

>3
  Good

>4:
  Fine with me

>6:
 OK


-----------
George Hunt --- Raytracer Obsessivo
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/lightsword
102### [at] compuservecom
-----------

Post a reply to this message

Hi everyone...

Michael Kent wrote:

<--Snip-->
> 
> 5: It has been pointed out that excluding image maps will be a real
> pain for certain things.  How best can these be controlled so as to
> avoid duplicate file names?
> 
Since every person who wants to build in the city will be assigned their
own place to build and the city is a grid, one solution to naming all
files needed would be to introduce a kind of coordinate system wich
could be used to create a naming convention, for example all files for
the first plot north and east of origo could be prefixed: n1e1, and then
if everyone would name their main file in that way ( n1e1.inc ) it would
be a very simple task including everything in the main cityfile. 

Also there would be no problem with plots covering more than one block (
eg n1-3e1-2.inc ). Anything you wanted could then be appended to the
filename: n1-3e1-2_really_fancy_texturemap.png or whatever.

Well, it's a thought...

//Hans

Post a reply to this message

mic### [at] enterprisenet (Michael Kent) wrote:

>Hi Everyone,
>
>Well, lots of ideas and opinions have been put forward here, and I
>would like to gather them all together before changing the rules for
>POVRayCity.  The main issues, as I see it are :-
>
>1: Scale.  Is 1 unit =25m to tight?  If so what about 1 unit = 10 m,
>or  1 unit = 1 m.?

I would suggest 1 unit = 1 [foot, meter, yard, whatever]. One to one
makes it easier to calculate in your head.

>2: Detail level.  I understand and share the concerns about the amount
>of detail, and how this could affect rendering as the city grows.
>Especially, as has been mentioned, when people start to grow trees
>etc.  Personally I favour the idea of "distance from camera" related
>detail levels,( as described by Fran Firman) but it would have to be
>done in such a manner that relatively inexperienced contributors could
>understand.  I also think that the "distance would have to be
>definable in one place so that people can easily tweak it to suit.

It looks like there have been a number of reasonable suggestions so
far. 

>3: The Plane (grass in the basement)  I'll cut a hole in it, and give
>a box as a standard floor which people can cut through and build
>around as they wish.

A Box sounds good. This would allow for differing 'lawns', basements,
and even underground utility runs.

>4: Are the plots the right size ?  At current scale they are about 225
>m square.

If you change the scale you might want to change the plots to a
'round' number, i.e. 200m sq., again just to make calculations 'in the
head' easier. Although the present system gives you nice even
coordinates yet still leaves space for the 'roads'.

>5: It has been pointed out that excluding image maps will be a real
>pain for certain things.  How best can these be controlled so as to
>avoid duplicate file names?

As has been suggested elsewhere go with a subdirectory structure for
each plot. I would suggest using first initial, middle initial, then
last name, i.e. 'jsfetzik' in my case. It is less likely then just
initials to repeat, but still gives things the 'personal' touch that
coordinate based names would not.

I would also suggest that the same naming convention be used for a
persons objects to be consistent, i.e. jsfetzik_object1.

>6: There are several include files which people heve written and
>released for public use.  I am happy for these to be included in the
>baseline to save people duplicating them, and to make it easier for
>everyone in general.
>I am happy to add anything that a contributor asks for, as long as the
>author has no objections, assuming that it is not too vast.

This sounds like a good idea. I am sure many of these will get used.
Tell everyone that you will take requests. If more then 2 people
request the same include I would consider it for addition. You might
want to make the inclusion conditional in the main file so that
someone can 'turn them off' by just changing one setting.


>Good ideas are always welcome, and may be stolen if not nailed down
>:-))

Might I suggest some form of macro for a plots coordinates. So that
you can relocate a plot without needing to can the 'residents' files.
I am not experienced enough with POV to know how easy or useful this
would be, but it sure could save headaches later.

Post a reply to this message

John S. Fetzik wrote:
> 
> >5: It has been pointed out that excluding image maps will be a real
> >pain for certain things.  How best can these be controlled so as to
> >avoid duplicate file names?
> 
> As has been suggested elsewhere go with a subdirectory structure for
> each plot. I would suggest using first initial, middle initial, then
> last name, i.e. 'jsfetzik' in my case. It is less likely then just
> initials to repeat, but still gives things the 'personal' touch that
> coordinate based names would not.
> 
> I would also suggest that the same naming convention be used for a
> persons objects to be consistent, i.e. jsfetzik_object1.
> 

Bit of a problem with naming the objects with your initials. I think
some of the newbies might be using modellers and don't have a clue as to
how to edit pov files, ie. they did'nt bother reading some of the pov
docs because they are too lazy ;-), so they won't be able to name the
objects themselves unless their modeller allows them to name the objects
within itself...am I making any sense?

Cheers, Matthew

Post a reply to this message

> Bit of a problem with naming the objects with your initials. I think
> some of the newbies might be using modellers and don't have a clue as to
> how to edit pov files, ie. they did'nt bother reading some of the pov
> docs because they are too lazy ;-)

Hey!!!  I resemble that remark!

Jerome "I Love ED" O'Neil

Post a reply to this message

Starting with moray?!  I started and still use raw pov code.  Moray is too
confusing.

~Kardal~

Matthew Mc Clement wrote:

> John S. Fetzik wrote:
> >
> > >5: It has been pointed out that excluding image maps will be a real
> > >pain for certain things.  How best can these be controlled so as to
> > >avoid duplicate file names?
> >
> > As has been suggested elsewhere go with a subdirectory structure for
> > each plot. I would suggest using first initial, middle initial, then
> > last name, i.e. 'jsfetzik' in my case. It is less likely then just
> > initials to repeat, but still gives things the 'personal' touch that
> > coordinate based names would not.
> >
> > I would also suggest that the same naming convention be used for a
> > persons objects to be consistent, i.e. jsfetzik_object1.
> >
>
> Bit of a problem with naming the objects with your initials. I think
> some of the newbies might be using modellers and don't have a clue as to
> how to edit pov files, ie. they did'nt bother reading some of the pov
> docs because they are too lazy ;-), so they won't be able to name the
> objects themselves unless their modeller allows them to name the objects
> within itself...am I making any sense?
>
> Cheers, Matthew

Post a reply to this message

Kardal wrote:
> 
> Starting with moray?!  I started and still use raw pov code.  Moray is too
> confusing.
> 
> ~Kardal~
> 

Yup, you're right, moray is to confusing. I myself tried and then
stopped using it almost immediately. Can't get used to the interface.
Now, Amapi, thats a modeller that has an awesome interface and is free
for a whole year under Linux(generous shareware??). Unfortunately it
only exports pov meshes....well, theres nothing to it, emacs, here I
come!!!!

Cheers, Matthew

Post a reply to this message

Matthew Mc Clement wrote:

> Kardal wrote:
> >
> > Starting with moray?!  I started and still use raw pov code.  Moray is too
> > confusing.
>
> Yup, you're right, moray is to [sic] confusing. I myself tried and then
> stopped using it almost immediately. Can't get used to the interface.

Obviously you've never seen AutoCAD.  THAT's confusing.  Moray is the
least-confusing CAD interface I've ever seen, and I'm very surprised to find
this opinion voiced.  What is it that you find so confusing?  (I'm a
Moray-for-Windows beta-tester, BTW.)

jbm!

Post a reply to this message