Hey, Im using Moray, and Ive noticed alot of talk about Pov code. Does
anyone just use Povray for modelling? Isn't that pretty hard to visualize?

Post a reply to this message

Phead wrote:
> 
> Hey, Im using Moray, and Ive noticed alot of talk about Pov code. Does
> anyone just use Povray for modelling? Isn't that pretty hard to visualize?

I tried Moray a few times years ago.
Only used POV code since.

PoD.

Post a reply to this message

Same here, can't stand modellers, with the possible exception of Hammapatch

Mick

"Phead" <sco### [at] d0gznetnospam> wrote in message
news:394b9bea$1@news.povray.org...
> Hey, Im using Moray, and Ive noticed alot of talk about Pov code. Does
> anyone just use Povray for modelling? Isn't that pretty hard to visualize?
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"PoD" <pod### [at] merlinnetau> wrote in message
news:394BB63C.B5A1C65D@merlin.net.au...
| Phead wrote:
| >
| > Hey, Im using Moray, and Ive noticed alot of talk about Pov code. Does
| > anyone just use Povray for modelling? Isn't that pretty hard to visualize?
|
| I tried Moray a few times years ago.
| Only used POV code since.

Likewise here.  I have sPatch and hamaPatch and even a few Zip files of Moray
along with whatever else is in all these Zips, all sitting idle mostly (until
someone asks about them).  I started out on a store-bought modeler called 3D
Design Plus 2.0 years ago but that didn't last.  When I found out about
Polyray, and then POV-Ray, that was the end of the GUI for me.
As far as visualisation goes seems to me there's a lot involved in a modeler
ap too, all that positioning of point vertexes, lines and shapes isn't exactly
automatic you know  :-)

Bob

Post a reply to this message

i started on pov code, and for simple things i'll still use it, or to
modify moray code into megapov i'll use it. but for complex objects,
like the xwing i'm STILL working on- with over 1100 objects- there is no
way i could keep track of them without moray.  for those who haven't
used it for years, it is quite a good modeller right now in v3.2.  v3.3
is in the works now with several additions planned.  and using moray is
just a lot quicker in general.  there are things i would use plain
vanilla pov for.  things like isosurfaces, experiments in a specific
technique (which many povers do as can be seen in the images ng), and
things like that.  but for anything complicated, a modeller is the only
way to go.

Phead wrote:
> 
> Hey, Im using Moray, and Ive noticed alot of talk about Pov code. Does
> anyone just use Povray for modelling? Isn't that pretty hard to visualize?

Post a reply to this message

> Hey, Im using Moray, and Ive noticed alot of talk about Pov code. Does
> anyone just use Povray for modelling? Isn't that pretty hard to visualize?
> 

I started with Moray but then I decided that I should learn how the
code works to understand Moray better... I never went back. As others
mentioned I sometimes use sPatch or Leveller for things that would be
time consuming to do without a modeller, but whenever I decide to use
one I feel like "Ugh, I have to argue with a dumb modeller again...".
Whenever I use a modeller I have to chase objects all over the place,
"a little to the left, no not that way! Oh I'm moving the wrong screen
again...I didn't mean to do that! UNDO!"
With code it's 
sphere{<1,3.5,2>,0.5
       pigment{Blue}
}
...Done.

-- 
Phil
...coffee?...yes please! extra sugar,extra cream...Thank you.

Post a reply to this message

Phead wrote:
> 
> Hey, Im using Moray, and Ive noticed alot of talk about Pov code. Does
> anyone just use Povray for modelling? Isn't that pretty hard to visualize?

  As the official "Link Master" around here I have visited the pages
of just about every modeller ever made with support for POV-Ray and
most of the utility programs as well. I have downloaded and tried a
good many of them too. Like the others however I am hopelessly addicted
to typing my scenes out into a text based editor.
 With the addition of while loops and math operators in POV-Ray v3.0
the scene description language became that much more powerful and
there is not much if anything you can't do in plain text that you
can do with a GUI modelling program.
 There are however many people that stick to modellers alone and
put out some terrific work. It really depends on what you are
comfortable with and what makes you the most productive. As one
person mentioned they switched from Moray to text to learn more
about the code. This will help you understand POv-Ray's features
better and it will also allow you to use features that Moray has
no support for. It wouldn't hurt to try both and see what works
best for you.

-- 
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

Hey thanks for the replies.  I think I will stick with Moray awhile, but
check the code out at times too.

Hey and also, I recently checked out the winners of the raytracing
competition.  Man, those are some spectacular images and anims.  It does one
of two things - it either inspires, or depresses.  Personally, I really
don't think I have the patience to model Windor Castle or anything, but for
my simple work, I am well inspired. Great job to all who submit!


"Phead" <sco### [at] d0gznetnospam> wrote in message
news:394b9bea$1@news.povray.org...
> Hey, Im using Moray, and Ive noticed alot of talk about Pov code. Does
> anyone just use Povray for modelling? Isn't that pretty hard to visualize?
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Phil Clute" <pcl### [at] tiacnet> wrote in message
news:394C3B7D.75ACE6E0@tiac.net...
|  I sometimes use sPatch or Leveller for things that would be
| time consuming to do without a modeller, but whenever I decide to use
| one I feel like "Ugh, I have to argue with a dumb modeller again...".
| Whenever I use a modeller I have to chase objects all over the place,
| "a little to the left, no not that way! Oh I'm moving the wrong screen
| again...I didn't mean to do that! UNDO!"
| With code it's
| sphere{<1,3.5,2>,0.5
|        pigment{Blue}
| }
| ...Done.

A perfect description.  I could not have put it a better way.

Post a reply to this message

"Phead" <sco### [at] d0gznetnospam> wrote in message
news:394c554b@news.povray.org...
|
| Hey and also, I recently checked out the winners of the raytracing
| competition.  Man, those are some spectacular images and anims.  It does one
| of two things - it either inspires, or depresses.  Personally, I really
| don't think I have the patience to model Windor Castle or anything, but for
| my simple work, I am well inspired. Great job to all who submit!

I try to prevent undue stress by only going looking at other peoples stuff
when I'm in the mood to see some neat things once again.  However I'm still
learning to close the web browser before an attack of manic-depression comes
on.
In all sincerity, I turn off the TV or at least change channels if I sense too
much 3D "goodness" being shown (more difficult to leave a theatre) or I fear
I'll become a permanent mindless spectator instead of any kind of participant.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

> I try to prevent undue stress by only going looking at other peoples stuff
> when I'm in the mood to see some neat things once again.  However I'm
still
> learning to close the web browser before an attack of manic-depression
comes
> on.
> In all sincerity, I turn off the TV or at least change channels if I sense
too
> much 3D "goodness" being shown (more difficult to leave a theatre) or I
fear
> I'll become a permanent mindless spectator instead of any kind of
participant.
>
> Bob


hahahah.. good answer!

Post a reply to this message

ryan constantine <rco### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
: but for anything complicated, a modeller is the only
: way to go.

  Well, it depends on your definition of "complicated".
  For complicated generation of objects (trees, grass, galaxies...) modellers
are not very good unless they specifically support those.

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

Phead <sco### [at] d0gznetnospam> wrote:
: Hey, Im using Moray, and Ive noticed alot of talk about Pov code. Does
: anyone just use Povray for modelling? Isn't that pretty hard to visualize?

  It depends. I seldom use moray, although I have made something with it.
  For example this image I made completely with moray:

http://www.students.tut.fi/~warp/pics/Schoolfood.jpg

  Usually I code everything by hand. An example:

http://www.students.tut.fi/~warp/pics/Class.jpg

  In most of my best images I make some objects with a modeller (moray or
spatch or a model made by someone else) and the rest by hand.
  For example in this image:

http://www.students.tut.fi/~warp/pics/Spacedog_3.jpg

the sorcerer is made with moray, his hand is made with blob sculptor and
everything else is made by hand (or automatically created by povray, like
the heightfield).

  Sometimes I also use some include files (mostly made by Chris Colefax) as
well. For example in this image:

http://www.students.tut.fi/~warp/pics/Starship.jpg

the galaxy background is created with Chris' galaxy include file while the
spaceship is made by hand.

  In this image:

http://www.students.tut.fi/~warp/pics/Spacedog_6.jpg

the head of the character was made with spatch, the background was created
with Chris' lens flare include, and everything else is made by hand.

  I seldom do anything 100% with moray (or any other modeller). Only when
I need some (usually organic-looking) object that's too difficult to make
by hand I use some modeller to make that object.

  How do I "visualize" the scene when coding? Well, I imagine the coordinate
system in my head and figure out the coordinates of a certain point in space
by looking at this 3D space in my head. The I make a test render and see
how much did it go wrong and fine-tune the values.
  It's not that hard. Requires just a bit of practice.

  Why I do this? Because I'm a coder and I like the freedom povray gives to
me when making a scene. I can easily make a while-loop to create several
copies of the object or use some other specialized algorithms to do what
I want. With a modeller I can't usually do this.

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:394cefef@news.povray.org...


Those are some really nice images and good examples of using/not using a
modeler. Thanks!

Post a reply to this message

by complicated i mean a single model that can't be put together with
functions, macros, or randomization.  trees, grass etc. are complicated,
but i don't think of them as the same kind of models.  to me they are
more like environmental constructs (which make the surroundings of where
a model goes).  clouds and skies are another example of things that are
complicated, but don't fit into my personal view of a model.  of course,
anyone that can make any of the above items realistically, has praise
from me.

Warp wrote:
> 
> ryan constantine <rco### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> : but for anything complicated, a modeller is the only
> : way to go.
> 
>   Well, it depends on your definition of "complicated".
>   For complicated generation of objects (trees, grass, galaxies...) modellers
> are not very good unless they specifically support those.
> 
> --
> main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
> ):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

Phead wrote in message <394b9bea$1@news.povray.org>...
>Hey, Im using Moray, and Ive noticed alot of talk about Pov code. Does
>anyone just use Povray for modelling? Isn't that pretty hard to visualize?
>


I tend to model primarily in POV switching to sPatch or Moray only for
odder shapes (generally made of bezier patches). none of my
scenes have been done completely in a modeller and objects made
outside of povray are generally in the minority. As for how I visualize, I
find a graph book and a sharp pencil are essential.

Gail
********************************************************************
* gsh### [at] monotixcoza              * Reality.dat not found         *
* http://www.rucus.ru.ac.za/~gail/ * Attempting to reboot universe *
********************************************************************
* The best way to accelerate Windows NT is at 9.8 m/s^2      *
********************************************************************

Post a reply to this message

I have experimented with modellers. I tend to build my complicated objects
in POV-Ray as CSGs or Blobs. On occasion I will use SPatch. I have used
Moray v3.X and I don't get along with it very well. When it comes to
landscapes I use an old commercial program called VistaPro. It makes awsome
heightfields. It is a program I have played with since before I was a
Pov-Ray user.

Phead wrote in message <394b9bea$1@news.povray.org>...
>Hey, Im using Moray, and Ive noticed alot of talk about Pov code. Does
>anyone just use Povray for modelling? Isn't that pretty hard to visualize?
>
>

Post a reply to this message

I couldn't agree more Ken!  Moray generates Pov code so everything you can
do in Moray can be done in Pov code alone.

Post a reply to this message

Steven Jones <ste### [at] tsncc> wrote:
: I couldn't agree more Ken!  Moray generates Pov code so everything you can
: do in Moray can be done in Pov code alone.

  Only in theory.
  I would like to see you making a complicated model of a human head made with
bicubic patches by hand.

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

Point taken.  I use Rhino for stuff like that.

Post a reply to this message

The only thing that no one has mentioned is the great feeling you get when
you see a bunch of ASCII code that you typed into an editor transformed into
a 3-D scene by POV-Ray.

Aaron

"Phead" <sco### [at] d0gznetnospam> wrote in message
news:394b9bea$1@news.povray.org...
> Hey, Im using Moray, and Ive noticed alot of talk about Pov code. Does
> anyone just use Povray for modelling? Isn't that pretty hard to visualize?
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Aaron Gillies" <aar### [at] mindspringcom> wrote in message
news:395d1abb@news.povray.org...
| The only thing that no one has mentioned is the great feeling you get when
| you see a bunch of ASCII code that you typed into an editor transformed into
| a 3-D scene by POV-Ray.

So true.  And showing such files to people that have no knowledge of such
things can almost be as much fun.
I've seen, and done, a few renders using syntax (script, whatever) as text
objects.  Makes for a sort of mind behind the face of POV-Ray.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

Bob Hughes <per### [at] aolcom?subject=PoV-News:> skrev i
meldingsnyheter:395d37b9@news.povray.org...
> "Aaron Gillies" <aar### [at] mindspringcom> wrote in message
> news:395d1abb@news.povray.org...
> | The only thing that no one has mentioned is the great feeling you get
when
> | you see a bunch of ASCII code that you typed into an editor transformed
into
> | a 3-D scene by POV-Ray.
>
> So true.  And showing such files to people that have no knowledge of such
> things can almost be as much fun.
> I've seen, and done, a few renders using syntax (script, whatever) as text
> objects.  Makes for a sort of mind behind the face of POV-Ray.
>
> Bob
>
>
>

I've tried out a lot of 3D Editors that use script like POV-Ray, but none of
those has been so easy to use as POV-Ray has... When I first got POV-Ray, I
really liked it, and wondered if there were other programs that used
script... I've stumbled across a few, the latest one being a program that
used Python... The results were really good, but it took forever to learn
and to use the "language"...
I'd say POV-Ray is the best...

Zilvah

P.S. Anyone knows where I can find PolyRay? Their homepage is a 404...

Post a reply to this message

"Zilvah" <zil### [at] onlineno> wrote in message
news:395dedbd$1@news.povray.org...
|
| P.S. Anyone knows where I can find PolyRay? Their homepage is a 404...

This should get you there since I just checked it:
http://pages.infinit.net/gollum/polyray/poly1.htm

Bob

Post a reply to this message

I kinda disagree here, or at least leave it to preference. I have seen some amazing
IRTC stuff that was done 'by hand', or so they say. I personally am into Moray at
the moment, for that very reason, but I think complicated objects are entirely
possible by hand. I just don't have that much patience :)

Tim Soderstrom
TigerHawk

ryan constantine wrote:

> by complicated i mean a single model that can't be put together with
> functions, macros, or randomization.  trees, grass etc. are complicated,
> but i don't think of them as the same kind of models.  to me they are
> more like environmental constructs (which make the surroundings of where
> a model goes).  clouds and skies are another example of things that are
> complicated, but don't fit into my personal view of a model.  of course,
> anyone that can make any of the above items realistically, has praise
> from me.
>

Post a reply to this message

"ryan constantine" <rco### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:394D4A98.F4A094E1@yahoo.com...
> by complicated i mean a single model that can't be put together with
> functions, macros, or randomization. trees, grass etc. are complicated,
> but i don't think of them as the same kind of models. to me they are
> more like environmental constructs (which make the surroundings of where
> a model goes). clouds and skies are another example of things that are
> complicated, but don't fit into my personal view of a model. of course,
> anyone that can make any of the above items realistically, has praise
> from me.


I'd rather speak of each person preference and ability to use one tool or
the other. For the same model, you will find people who prefer (for whatever
reason) to use different tools. I believe in an user-tool-model relation
rather then just model-tool.


Also, I do not get the usage / type of model -> type of tool relationship
you are explaining. I understand a type of model (+person) -> tool
relationship. Trees and grass and clouds clearly do present the same kind of
difficulties to model when compared to (for example) a camera and hence a
similarity of tools / techniques. But I do not believe it is because these
objects are or aren't the focus of a scene.


Povingly,


Philippe

Post a reply to this message

Bob Hughes wrote:
> 
> "Phil Clute" <pcl### [at] tiacnet> wrote in message
> news:394C3B7D.75ACE6E0@tiac.net...
> |  I sometimes use sPatch or Leveller for things that would be
> | time consuming to do without a modeller, but whenever I decide to use
> | one I feel like "Ugh, I have to argue with a dumb modeller again...".
> | Whenever I use a modeller I have to chase objects all over the place,
> | "a little to the left, no not that way! Oh I'm moving the wrong screen
> | again...I didn't mean to do that! UNDO!"
> | With code it's
> | sphere{<1,3.5,2>,0.5
> |        pigment{Blue}
> | }
> | ...Done.
> 
> A perfect description.  I could not have put it a better way.
Well... that's why i mostly use moray for doing the model itself, and
the scene, usually, but you know, there are fields for translation,
rotation and scaling in Moray's gui.
And, uh for scripting&weird effects in pov(or mostly megapov), that's
definitely hand code 8)
--
AKA paul_virak_khuong at yahoo.com, pkhuong at deja.com, pkhuong at
crosswinds.net and pkhuong at technologist.com(list not complete)...

Post a reply to this message