TonyB wrote:
> >1) A
> >2) A
> >3) A
> >4) A
> >5) A
> >6) A
> >A) A
> >B) A
> >C) A
> >D) A
>
>
> Are you Canadian, per chance? ;)
>
>

No, I'am Belgian.
I suppose there is a joke/pun of some kind here, but I do not get it...


Confusedly

Philippe

Post a reply to this message

Aaaaargh... I got this wrong.

I wanted to answer the survey _quickly_ before the week-end. I shouldn't
have. Now, I look dumb once again (I'am getting used to it).

It tortured me the whole week-end (and no internet access - aaargh).

Please, let me restate this:
1) A.
2) B.
3) A.
4) A.
5) B.
6) A.
A) A.
B) A..
C) A.
D) A.

I also wanted do download MegaPov this Week-end, but *sigh* no internet
acces...

:-(


I'am dumb, I'am a moron, please forgive me



Merry christmas to everybody.


Povingly,


Philippe

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 20 Dec 1999 10:33:11 +0100, "Philippe Debar"
<phi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>No, I'am Belgian.
>I suppose there is a joke/pun of some kind here, but I do not get it...

  Philippe, it probably lost something while crossing the Atlantic <s>.
Supposedly, Canadians use the expression, "Eh?", a lot, usually at the
end of a sentence. I cannot verify this.

-- 
Alan - ako### [at] povrayorg - a k o n g <at> p o v r a y <dot> o r g
http://www.povray.org - Home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer

Post a reply to this message

I would like to see normals act the same as if they were 'real', 
(heightfields for flat objects). Besides just making more sense to me, 
it keeps open the possibility of a 'deform' keyword some day that 
actually does the deformation that the normal is pretending to do, with 
the obvious speed penalty.

It may never happen, but it has been a dream of mine... to dream... the 
impossible dream...

Jerry

Post a reply to this message

"eh" sounds like long vowel "a", just to further point out.

Bob

"Alan Kong" <ako### [at] povrayNO-SPAMorg> wrote in message
news:c6as5soem97eju5s2kligkosl2aejep82g@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 20 Dec 1999 10:33:11 +0100, "Philippe Debar"
> <phi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>
> >No, I'am Belgian.
> >I suppose there is a joke/pun of some kind here, but I do not get it...
>
>   Philippe, it probably lost something while crossing the Atlantic <s>.
> Supposedly, Canadians use the expression, "Eh?", a lot, usually at the
> end of a sentence. I cannot verify this.
>
> --
> Alan - ako### [at] povrayorg - a k o n g <at> p o v r a y <dot> o r g
> http://www.povray.org - Home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer

Post a reply to this message

Not normals exactly but displacement mapping is something that does that.
The 'function' in isosurfaces can do it.  No idea why the normal statement
is not considered for such a thing as "deform" or displacement as you say;
makes sense to me.  Probably since it is a =faked= surface deformation
already and that would make it obsolete maybe? : )  In any case the change
would need the system used in the current patches using isosurface
functions.

Bob

"Jerry" <jer### [at] acusdedu> wrote in message
news:jerry-B58105.11121720121999@news.povray.org...
> I would like to see normals act the same as if they were 'real',
> (heightfields for flat objects). Besides just making more sense to me,
> it keeps open the possibility of a 'deform' keyword some day that
> actually does the deformation that the normal is pretending to do, with
> the obvious speed penalty.
>
> It may never happen, but it has been a dream of mine... to dream... the
> impossible dream...
>
> Jerry

Post a reply to this message

1. A
2. B
3. A
4. A
5. B
6. A


I straddled the fence for long time on this question before 
falling gracelessly on the side of making normals more like
the surface displacements they emulate. Even if this means 
adding a #version switch or potentially breaking every scene 
ever made for POV, (backward compatibility is a tyrrant!), but 
I just can't help liking the displacement emulating paradigm 
better than having to separately adjust bump_size. It's simply
more intuitive. I *could* learn to live with it either way,
as long as whatever paradigm is chosen is applied consistantly
to all kinds of normals, but automatically adjusting normals 
with scale statements is more sensible in the long term. 


Charles

---
Nathan Kopp wrote:
> 
> I am wondering what people really think about how normals and scaling should
> work.  If you're interested in this topic, please see this page and take the
> 'surface normal survey'.  You can reply by emailing me or reply to this
> post.
> 
> http://nathan.kopp.com/normals.htm
> 
> -Nathan

Post a reply to this message

:-)

Post a reply to this message

In article <385e8587@news.povray.org>, "omniVERSE" <inv### [at] aolcom> 
wrote:

>Not normals exactly but displacement mapping is something that does that.
>The 'function' in isosurfaces can do it.  No idea why the normal statement
>is not considered for such a thing as "deform" or displacement as you say;
>makes sense to me.  Probably since it is a =faked= surface deformation
>already and that would make it obsolete maybe? : )  In any case the change
>would need the system used in the current patches using isosurface
>functions.

I doubt that true displacement will ever be as fast as faked 
displacement. That's one of the reasons it would be nice to use them 
both interchangeably--assuming it is possible at all.

Or there could be an added 'quality' number that causes normals to be 
'real'. "My POV-Ray goes up to 11."

Jerry

Post a reply to this message

Charles Fusner wrote:

> 1. A
> 2. B
> 3. A
> 4. A
> 5. B
> 6. A

> I straddled the fence for long time on this question before
> falling gracelessly on the side of making normals more like
> the surface displacements they emulate. Even if this means

> adding a #version switch or potentially breaking every scene
> ever made for POV, (backward compatibility is a tyrrant!), but
> I just can't help liking the displacement emulating paradigm
> better than having to separately adjust bump_size. It's simply

This is exactly what I think (and even tried (and possibly failed)
to express a few months ago (I interpreted it as a bug)): Modifiying
a normal on a scaled surface is different from modifying the
surface and then computing it's modified normal.
Vanilla povray does the former, which not only is (IMHO)
counterintuitive, but even constructs normals which cannot belong
to any surface (they fail to fulfill the integrability condition).
This should be visible if a modified copy of example 5 with
"<5,1,1>" instead of "<5,1,5>"is run.

Many thanks to Nathan for creating a web page which makes
this distinction very clear (it goes far beyond the examples
which I intended to make, but never found the time to do).

Btw., even if ABAABA does not win the election, I'd wish to see
1=4, 2=5, 3=6.

Ralf

Post a reply to this message