 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker wrote:
> For the same reason that John VanSickle won't put UV support in the
> subdivision suite until it's provided in an official version: a scene
> file that uses that pattern won't work in the official POV. If it's
> an effect that can be accomplished by other means, and if you plan to
> share your scene file, why not use the portable way?
There is nothing wrong with the portable way per se (Ah peotry). I have
however have become inspired by Chris Young's proposal to incorporate
patches into the official version and if people rely on only the portable
coding methods he may never get an itch to add similar patterns in the
future. For that matter are there not a handful of custom patterns in
the SP simply because they tickled someones fancy ?
> >Regardless the fact the you and Warp, both advanced users, can figure out
> >a somewhat complicated method of rendering this pattern, does not make
> >it intuitively obvious to others and I doubt less than 10% of all Pov
> >users could do it themselves.
>
> True. Which is why instead of saying "It can be done" I actually spent
> a few minutes to do it and share it with the world, as did Warp.
We commend you for your efforts in this regard and encourage you to continue
to do so but how many of the total number of Pov users are you really reaching
with these generous donations ? Again on my little soap box if you at least
posted the code for these unique patterns that you develope in one of the
scene-files groups with an appropriate header you would probably reach a
greater number of users with them. Buried in a reply to a thread like this
few will ever be able to find your code again even with a good search routine.
> >Yeah warp listen to papa :)
> Does that make me Papa Parker, Unka Ken? Others might have felt this
> comment was just a bit patronizing; fortunately, I'm rather thick-skinned.
Actually that was more of a dig in Warps direction Papa "leather neck" Parker.
--
Ken Tyler
See my 850+ Povray and 3D Rendering and Raytracing Links at:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nieminen Juha wrote:
> If we add a patch to povray every time someone wants his own pattern
> type, povray would grow wildly and there would be a lot more maintenance
> problems.
> If someone doesn't know how to get the desired pattern, he sould learn
> how to use povray ;)
Again let me say that what is easy for you to figure out may be an
impossibilty for someone with lesser abilities than your own. You
have an university education, some programming abilities, and your
grasp of math is on orders better than my own. This puts you in an
enviable position that not every user can acheive even with the best
of intentions. I am also not advocating adding "every" pattern written
but some of the more trick patterns that are developed would make
welcome additions to the program barring any problems with breaking
an existing function.
--
Ken Tyler
See my 850+ Povray and 3D Rendering and Raytracing Links at:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Sep 1999 07:56:43 -0700, Ken wrote:
>There is nothing wrong with the portable way per se (Ah peotry). I have
>however have become inspired by Chris Young's proposal to incorporate
>patches into the official version and if people rely on only the portable
>coding methods he may never get an itch to add similar patterns in the
>future. For that matter are there not a handful of custom patterns in
>the SP simply because they tickled someones fancy ?
The only pigment mods I can think of in the SP are the new crackle stuff
(because they tickled my fancy, specifically, and couldn't be done any other
way) and the function-based pigments from the isosurface patch. It's an
area that hasn't really been explored to the extent that it probably should
be. Again, let me be the first to say that I have nothing against patches
in general, and I'll even incorporate this patch into the superpatch if the
author so desires. I just like to provide an alternative where possible for
those people who, like the previously-unenlightened Ken, refuse to use or
just simply can't use custom patches. Besides, writing that kind of ugly
POV script is actually FUN.
Actually, there is a difference between both of the POV-script-only
solutions and the patch solution, which is probably important to most
people. When used with arbitrary pigments, the POV-script-only versions
repeat the same part of the pigment over and over. In the case of my
hextiles and triangle versions, they also have reflective symmetry in
odd places. I assume the patch versions do not.
>Again on my little soap box if you at least
>posted the code for these unique patterns that you develope in one of the
>scene-files groups with an appropriate header you would probably reach a
>greater number of users with them. Buried in a reply to a thread like this
>few will ever be able to find your code again even with a good search routine.
True. I should probably do that. Usually, I put these little gems on
Twyst's macroscope if there's a positive response to them, but I must admit
that I haven't done that with the hex tiles pattern either. Maybe I'll
polish up my collection of patterns (stars, hextiles, triangles, square
tiles, and the unwritten-but-obvious triangle tiles) and put them online
somewhere. I suspect if I did that before releasing the next superpatch,
though, I'd probably be lynched for wasting that valuable spare time. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I will hurry up and send my unfinished patch work to you, if you want.
The transparency patch isn't fully implemented, only the blurring
portion, but everything else should work. I haven't done much work on it
lately...I need to get back to it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Sep 1999 13:04:23 -0500, Chris Huff wrote:
>I will hurry up and send my unfinished patch work to you, if you want.
>The transparency patch isn't fully implemented, only the blurring
>portion, but everything else should work. I haven't done much work on it
>lately...I need to get back to it.
There's no rush; there's always another superpatch around the corner.
I prefer complete patches due to the difficulty of merging multiple
versions of the same patch. Maybe when I start using version control
that will change.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Sep 1999 13:04:23 -0500, Chris Huff wrote:
> >I will hurry up and send my unfinished patch work to you, if you want.
> >The transparency patch isn't fully implemented, only the blurring
> >portion, but everything else should work. I haven't done much work on it
> >lately...I need to get back to it.
>
> There's no rush; there's always another superpatch around the corner.
> I prefer complete patches due to the difficulty of merging multiple
> versions of the same patch. Maybe when I start using version control
> that will change.
What? You're not on things yet?
I thought you had gotten going on CVS, so I laid off of you regarding using
RCS. Guess I have to crack the whip a little :-)
Source control: just use it.
:-)
--
"My new computer's got the clocks, it rocks
But it was obsolete before I opened the box" - W.A.Y.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Sep 1999 11:48:56 -0700, Jon A. Cruz wrote:
>Ron Parker wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 01 Sep 1999 13:04:23 -0500, Chris Huff wrote:
>> >I will hurry up and send my unfinished patch work to you, if you want.
>> >The transparency patch isn't fully implemented, only the blurring
>> >portion, but everything else should work. I haven't done much work on it
>> >lately...I need to get back to it.
>>
>> There's no rush; there's always another superpatch around the corner.
>> I prefer complete patches due to the difficulty of merging multiple
>> versions of the same patch. Maybe when I start using version control
>> that will change.
>
>What? You're not on things yet?
>I thought you had gotten going on CVS, so I laid off of you regarding using
>RCS. Guess I have to crack the whip a little :-)
Eh, well, my Linux box that was going to run the CVS server died, then the
network card had problems... I'll likely give it another try this weekend.
CVS is obviously a better answer than RCS for this specific application,
because of all the branching that's going on.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken <tyl### [at] pacbell net> wrote:
: Again let me say that what is easy for you to figure out may be an
: impossibilty for someone with lesser abilities than your own. You
: have an university education, some programming abilities, and your
: grasp of math is on orders better than my own. This puts you in an
: enviable position that not every user can acheive even with the best
: of intentions.
Man, you are making me to be ashamed of myself...
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nieminen Juha wrote:
> Ok, here it is. This should be faster than the gradient-version:
>
> #macro Squares(p1,p2,p3,p4)
> checker
> pigment
> { checker pigment { p1 }, pigment { p2 }
> scale <.5,1,1>
> }
> pigment
> { checker pigment { p4 }, pigment { p3 }
> scale <.5,1,1>
> }
> scale <1,.5,1>*2
> warp { repeat 2*x }
> #end
>
> #declare P1=pigment { rgb x }
> #declare P2=pigment { wood turbulence .5 scale .4 }
> #declare P3=pigment { granite scale .5 }
> #declare P4=pigment { rgb z }
> camera { location -z*7 look_at 0 }
> plane
> { -z,0 pigment { Squares(P1,P2,P3,P4) }
> finish { ambient 1 }
> }
>
I won't continue the competition for speed nor really test this,
but it seems to me that checker is a 3D pattern, moving
in the three axes...
Or I just misinterpret the warp... I think you would need more
warp statement for y and z !
I'm far too incompetent with patterns included in other patterns
(I'm at a complete loose to understand where to apply correctly
a translate or scale to a pattern to do exactly what I think),
but does the warp repetition only apply to the outside pattern or
also at the computation of the internal pattern ?
If the second, then a paving of wood tiles would really be boring
and unrealistic. (but there is also this reset_child thing to look
at)....
For my patch, it is available and everybody is free to take it.
I would be please to see it in SP (or even better in the official!),
but I do not want to bother anyone and delay any releases...
(I would dreams simply of a 3.1g based SP with all the UV and photon,
and iso things...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nieminen Juha wrote:
>
> Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
> : Again let me say that what is easy for you to figure out may be an
> : impossibilty for someone with lesser abilities than your own. You
> : have an university education, some programming abilities, and your
> : grasp of math is on orders better than my own. This puts you in an
> : enviable position that not every user can acheive even with the best
> : of intentions.
>
> Man, you are making me to be ashamed of myself...
:)
Fortunately what I lack in formal education I make up for with dogged
determination and persistence. The uneducated may seem inherently stupid
but they are clever and resourceful and bear considerable watching.
--
Ken Tyler
See my 850+ Povray and 3D Rendering and Raytracing Links at:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
