|
|
On 14/09/2014 16:20, clipka wrote:
> Am 14.09.2014 14:42, schrieb Stephen:
>
>>> Whether the conversion process would be render-ish or parse-ish is an
>>> entirely different question.
>>
>> I'm out of my depth here.
>
> A mesh representation of the scene would probably be easiest to achieve
> by parsing the scene, then having dedicated code convert each and every
> object separately into a mesh.
>
Not using the tessellation that can be done in SDL, then?
> A voxel ("volume pixel", i.e. 3D array of boxes) representation of the
> scene could be generated in a similar way; it could, however, also be
> generated by having POV-Ray parse the scene, and then use existing code
> in the render engine to systematically ray-trace it, collecting not only
> colour information but also the intersection position information.
>
How would that handle parts that are obscured by itself or other objects?
>>> As a matter of fact this is the direction the dev team intends to go, in
>>> order to make it easier to integrate components of POV-Ray into other
>>> pieces of software - be it as an input filter or a render engine. But it
>>> won't happen overnight, and I won't be the only one working towards this
>>> goal.
>>>
>> Are we thinking about Pov 4.0?
>
> Not exactly; more like POV-Ray 3.8 and 3.9, as POV-Ray 4.0 will most
> probably be the step that introduces a brand new parser with a brand new
> syntax. That'll obviously be easier to implement once we already have a
> clear-cut API for the render engine.
>
Interesting, thanks for explaining in a way I can understand.
>>> I've even heard tell that it is typically used with sharp tools to
>>> remove parts of the material. :-)
>>>
>> And abrasive ones for Anti-Aliasing.
>
> *ROTFLMAO!*
>
We are here to serve. :-)
>> Think wood turning, it is simpler and more "hands on".
>
> Well, the primary tool used for that /is/ a lathe, isn't it?
>
Yes of course. A lathe is a turning machine.
> Actually that's the thing I'm primarily thinking of - certainly not a
> CNC metal-machining lathe, that would be boring (uh... no pun intended).
>
You know the drill. ;-)
A manual metal turning lathe would be over complicated IMO.
And where is the fun in pushing a button to get your shape.
Have you thought about the Kinect as an i/p device?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|