Gilles Tran wrote:
> 
> Thanks Nathan. I'll have a lot to play with next year.
> Megapov wouldn't be a working name for Pov 3.5, by any chance ? It's full
> of incredible goodies, fixes old "official" problems, compiles under
> several platforms... Radiosity and media now work fast and well...
> Wow. It really looks like something the next official Pov could (should)
> be.

POV-Ray 3.5 and MegaPov are similar in some ways, different in others. 
Anyone who was thrown by the fact that the UniMegaPov 0.1 and 0.2
makefiles had "POV-Ray 3.5" at the top can rest assured that this was a
mistake on my part (it saved me some rewriting to modify an early
version of the 3.5 makefile, which already had targets and dependencies
related to some new files found in both 3.5 and MegaPov, and while I got
all the actual code cleaned up, I forgot to modify the comments).

-Mark Gordon

Post a reply to this message

>When I look commercial software, I am saying to me Pov is great!
>Commercial software has just good modeller and animation facilities
>that Pov don't have but concerning the rendering engine it is
>often not better than Pov! (some commercial software include
>caustic ( and even standard raytracing) only since few time)


Please remember that they are also faster at rendering than POV. POV is pure
trayracing, but these guys only put it in where it is necesary (reflective,
refractive surfaces). The expensive packages are better than POV, but what
can one expect for $2500+? I mean, if ain't good at that price, then they're
totally ripping you off. For me, POV is good enough (so far...). And you
can't beat this price, can you?

Post a reply to this message

> The expensive packages are better than POV

I am not sure that expensive package are always good (for me 3dS Max
is expensive :)). There use plenty 
of tricks to render faster but this not always so good. A renderer 
like mentalray (www.mental.com) is very very good because its 
calculations are right (behavior of light, etc...). And some 
commercial soft use it. But the default renderer of these commercial 
softs are very less good! But these soft have powerful modeller!
So can make "what you want" "easily".
Look at pbi I have put a picture take from a french NG of softimage.
This is a ring. The modelling is good but the render image is not
good at all. Where are the caustics? (and even without caustic, 
the rendering with Pov will be better! What's this gold color 
everywhere). Ok this is an example take from an amateur and a 
professional will do better :). But believe me Pov is really good :)

Merry Xmas and Happy New Year.

Fabian.



TonyB wrote:
> 
> >When I look commercial software, I am saying to me Pov is great!
> >Commercial software has just good modeller and animation facilities
> >that Pov don't have but concerning the rendering engine it is
> >often not better than Pov! (some commercial software include
> >caustic ( and even standard raytracing) only since few time)
> 
> Please remember that they are also faster at rendering than POV. POV is pure
> trayracing, but these guys only put it in where it is necesary (reflective,
> refractive surfaces). The expensive packages are better than POV, but what
> can one expect for $2500+? I mean, if ain't good at that price, then they're
> totally ripping you off. For me, POV is good enough (so far...). And you
> can't beat this price, can you?

Post a reply to this message

Thanks Nathan and to the whole patch-team.
Like omniVERSE I never got to use ver0.2 so
hopefully I'll use ver0.3 before the next
bug fix. :)
-- 
Phil
...coffee?...yes please! extra sugar,extra cream...Thank you.

Post a reply to this message