 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Just curious: Is MegaPov development dead and all of it moved to MegaPov+?
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
well if chris huff is the only one working, and he calls his version
megapov+, then the answer would be yes. nathan and some of the others
are on the pov team, so i would assume they're working on 3.5 when they
have time.
Warp wrote:
>
> Just curious: Is MegaPov development dead and all of it moved to MegaPov+?
>
> --
> main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
> ):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <39bdf5f6@news.povray.org>, Warp <war### [at] tag povrayorg>
wrote:
> Just curious: Is MegaPov development dead and all of it moved to
> MegaPov+?
Nathan's time is currently focused on getting 3.5 out, but MegaPOV is
still being developed. There will almost certainly not be a version of
MegaPOV released before 3.5, but there will probably be a new version of
MegaPOV based on the 3.5 sources soon after the 3.5 release.
Also, I want to make something clear: MegaPOVPlus is not intended to be
a replacement for MegaPOV, just a way to get patches out while still in
very early development for testing and suggestions. If MegaPOV is a
"development release", MP+ is a "development preview" of features that
might get into MegaPOV or eventually the official version.
--
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
So MegaPOV+ is like the Alpha, and MegaPOV is like the Beta, and POV 3.5-4.0
is like the Final?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Will there be a MegapovSuperpatchPlus to test ideas which have not yet
been implemented? ;-)
--
Phil
...coffee?...yes please! extra sugar,extra cream...Thank you.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <39be593c@news.povray.org> , "Tony[B]"
<ben### [at] panamac-comnet> wrote:
> So MegaPOV+ is like the Alpha, and MegaPOV is like the Beta, and POV 3.5-4.0
> is like the Final?
No, while MegaPOV and POV-Ray 3.5 will have some of the same features, the
code base is *different*. There is no POV-Ray 3.1 + MegaPOV = POV-Ray 3.5.
It is more like POV-Ray 3.1 + new features + some parts of MegaPOV = POV-Ray
3.5.
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chris Huff" <chr### [at] maccom> wrote...
> Nathan's time is currently focused on getting 3.5 out, but MegaPOV is
> still being developed. There will almost certainly not be a version of
> MegaPOV released before 3.5
Actually, smellenbergh and I are working to release MegaPov 0.6, but it will
not include the particle system. It will probably not include glows,
either, but might if Chris nails down some details and sends word to
smellenbergh.
After that, there will not be any new releases of MegaPov until after the
release of POV 3.5. And by that time, MegaPov will might even have become
an "experimental" branch of the POV-Ray source-control tree.
-Nathan Kopp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <39bead33$1@news.povray.org>, "Nathan Kopp"
<Nat### [at] Koppcom> wrote:
> Actually, smellenbergh and I are working to release MegaPov 0.6, but
> it will not include the particle system.
Well, sometimes I don't mind being wrong. :-)
> It will probably not include glows, either, but might if Chris nails
> down some details and sends word to smellenbergh.
Which details are you thinking of? Do you mean getting a stable syntax,
getting "size" to work correctly, making glows work more like
objects...etc.
BTW, one more thing...type 2 glows are mis-documented as simulating a
solid-density sphere. While I do plan on doing this, type 2 actually is
a cosine falloff function, type 4 will be solid-density spheres(it isn't
implemented yet).
> After that, there will not be any new releases of MegaPov until after
> the release of POV 3.5. And by that time, MegaPov will might even
> have become an "experimental" branch of the POV-Ray source-control
> tree.
This sounds like very good news...
--
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> No, while MegaPOV and POV-Ray 3.5 will have some of the same features, the
> code base is *different*.
OK. Let me see if I get this: you mean that you people add the same feature,
but you make your own code? You redo the thing from scratch, essentially? Or
did I misunderstand completely? I mean, I understand that you don't just go
POV 3.1 + MegaPOV = POV 3.5. You just add the important stuff after making
it 200% bug free, right?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chris Huff" <chr### [at] maccom> wrote...
> Which details are you thinking of? Do you mean getting a stable syntax,
> getting "size" to work correctly, making glows work more like
> objects...etc.
Yes, those would be the details that I'm thinking of. :-)
-Nathan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tony[B]" <ben### [at] panamac-comnet> wrote...
>
> OK. Let me see if I get this: you mean that you people add the same
feature,
> but you make your own code? You redo the thing from scratch, essentially?
Or
> did I misunderstand completely? I mean, I understand that you don't just
go
> POV 3.1 + MegaPOV = POV 3.5. You just add the important stuff after making
> it 200% bug free, right?
Here's how POV 3.5 was made so far:
Start with POV 3.1 (a?)
Merge in the SuperPatch
Add in POV 3.1g modifications and bug fixes
Change some code from C to C++
Make major changes to input and output
Add a totally new system for Core<=>GUI communication
(notice no MegaPov yet)
Merge MegaPov 0.5a features
Remove some MegaPov features that are unstable and/or buggy
Start modifying MegaPov features to make them better
Add in a few more features
All the while continue to fix a _ton_ of tricky bugs that have been coming
in as bug reports.
That's where we're at now. There are still many bugs that need to be fixed
and new features that need to be updated/improved and documented.
-Nathan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
go chris go!
Nathan Kopp wrote:
>
> "Chris Huff" <chr### [at] maccom> wrote...
> > Which details are you thinking of? Do you mean getting a stable syntax,
> > getting "size" to work correctly, making glows work more like
> > objects...etc.
>
> Yes, those would be the details that I'm thinking of. :-)
>
> -Nathan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nathan Kopp wrote:
>
>
> Here's how POV 3.5 was made so far:
>
> Start with POV 3.1 (a?)
> Merge in the SuperPatch
> Add in POV 3.1g modifications and bug fixes
> Change some code from C to C++
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What this means? Does it mean, that C++ compiler is now required for
core POV-Ray? Or system-dependent part of it requires it? Care to
elaborate?
Inquiring minds want to know ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nathan Kopp <Nat### [at] koppcom> wrote:
:> Which details are you thinking of? Do you mean getting a stable syntax,
:> getting "size" to work correctly, making glows work more like
:> objects...etc.
: Yes, those would be the details that I'm thinking of. :-)
Since when has megapov cared about stable syntax?-)
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Start with POV 3.1 (a?)
> Merge in the SuperPatch
> Add in POV 3.1g modifications and bug fixes
> Change some code from C to C++
> Make major changes to input and output
> Add a totally new system for Core<=>GUI communication
> (notice no MegaPov yet)
> Merge MegaPov 0.5a features
> Remove some MegaPov features that are unstable and/or buggy
> Start modifying MegaPov features to make them better
> Add in a few more features
> All the while continue to fix a _ton_ of tricky bugs that have been coming
> in as bug reports.
OK. So what you really did was this:
POV 3.1a + SuperPatch + POV 3.1g + rewiring + MegaPOV 0.5a - garbage +
improvements + bugfixes
Did I get it right now? :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tony[B]" <ben### [at] panamac-comnet> wrote in message
news:39bf7958@news.povray.org...
> > Start with POV 3.1 (a?)
> > Merge in the SuperPatch
> > Add in POV 3.1g modifications and bug fixes
> > Change some code from C to C++
> > Make major changes to input and output
> > Add a totally new system for Core<=>GUI communication
> > (notice no MegaPov yet)
> > Merge MegaPov 0.5a features
> > Remove some MegaPov features that are unstable and/or buggy
> > Start modifying MegaPov features to make them better
> > Add in a few more features
> > All the while continue to fix a _ton_ of tricky bugs that have been
coming
> > in as bug reports.
>
> OK. So what you really did was this:
> POV 3.1a + SuperPatch + POV 3.1g + rewiring + MegaPOV 0.5a - garbage +
> improvements + bugfixes
>
> Did I get it right now? :)
>
Now I'm confused. I thought mp had the superpatch stuff in it, and why pov
3.1a?
Why not POV 3.1g + MP 0.5a - garbage + improvements + bugfixes.
(just out of curiosity)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
BTW I should have stressed that I'm not suggesting you are doing it wrong,
I'm suggesting I'm an ignorant fool when it comes to C and in need of
enlightenment. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 15:33:06 +0100, Tom Melly wrote:
>Now I'm confused. I thought mp had the superpatch stuff in it, and why pov
>3.1a?
>
>Why not POV 3.1g + MP 0.5a - garbage + improvements + bugfixes.
It's historical. I think Nathan is a bit confused on the early history,
which happened before either of us were on the team, but I sent the code
for the Superpatch to Chris Young when 3.5 was but a glimmer, and before
MegaPOV even existed (but after 3.1g existed.) The actual order of things
was POV 3.1g + Superpatch (based on 3.1d) + ...
The "easy" way you mention would have required the team to have started
work on 3.5 much later than they actually did.
--
Ron Parker http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
My opinions. Mine. Not anyone else's.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: MegaPov is dead. Long live MegaPov+?
Date: 13 Sep 2000 13:16:00
Message: <39bfb650@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <slr### [at] fwicom> , ron### [at] povrayorg (Ron
Parker) wrote:
> It's historical. I think Nathan is a bit confused on the early history,
> which happened before either of us were on the team, but I sent the code
> for the Superpatch to Chris Young when 3.5 was but a glimmer, and before
> MegaPOV even existed (but after 3.1g existed.) The actual order of things
> was POV 3.1g + Superpatch (based on 3.1d) + ...
Actually, it is even more complicated: POV-Ray 3.5 was based on 3.1d (the
version current at the time development started) and then the bug fixes of
3.1e, 3.1f and 3.1g were merged in as they were made available (Ron, check
out change35.doc in the 3.5 source for the early history).
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: MegaPov is dead. Long live MegaPov+?
Date: 13 Sep 2000 13:24:51
Message: <39bfb863@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <39bf7958@news.povray.org> , "Tony[B]"
<ben### [at] panamac-comnet> wrote:
> OK. So what you really did was this:
> POV 3.1a + SuperPatch + POV 3.1g + rewiring + MegaPOV 0.5a - garbage +
> improvements + bugfixes
>
> Did I get it right now? :)
No, not completely, but you are getting closer! It is more like:
POV-Ray 3.1d + bugfixes + new stuff + parts of SuperPatch + bugfixes + more
new stuff + 3.1e + more parts of SuperPatch + bugfixes + 3.1f and 3.1g +
more new stuff + bugfixes + MegaPOV 0.5a - unstable features + more new
stuff + bugfixes = POV-Ray 3.5
Get it? ;-)
Or, to add to Nathan's list (I don't claim it is complete):
> Start with POV 3.1d
> Add a totally new system for Core<=>GUI communication
> Merge in some SuperPatch parts
> Make major changes to input and output
> Add in POV 3.1g modifications and bug fixes
> Merge in more SuperPatch parts
> Add other features, i.e. JPEG input
> Change some code from C to C++
> (notice no MegaPov yet)
> Merge MegaPov 0.5a features
> Remove some MegaPov features that are unstable and/or buggy
> Start modifying MegaPov features to make them better
> Add in a few more features
> All the while continue to fix a _ton_ of tricky bugs that have been coming
> in as bug reports.
There is also the situation where there are two independent features of the
same kind that were developed for 3.5 and someone made a patch doing
something similar.
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: MegaPov is dead. Long live MegaPov+?
Date: 13 Sep 2000 13:27:00
Message: <39bfb8e4@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <39bf9025$1@news.povray.org> , "Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandlucouk>
wrote:
> Why not POV 3.1g + MP 0.5a - garbage + improvements + bugfixes.
Because we did not just wait two years for MegaPOV to come along so we could
merge it in :-)
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: MegaPov is dead. Long live MegaPov+?
Date: 13 Sep 2000 13:29:29
Message: <39bfb979@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <39BF30B6.158E85D9@aetec.ee> , Vahur Krouverk <vah### [at] aetecee>
wrote:
> What this means? Does it mean, that C++ compiler is now required for
> core POV-Ray? Or system-dependent part of it requires it? Care to
> elaborate?
> Inquiring minds want to know ;-)
Yes, you need a C++ compiler now.
(Not just to you)
Also, keep the "POV-Team Status Report - September 1, 2000" in
povray.announce.frequently-asked-questions in mind :-)
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> No, not completely, but you are getting closer! It is more like:
<snip>
> Get it? ;-)
Uh... I think... I guess... :-)
> There is also the situation where there are two independent features of
the
> same kind that were developed for 3.5 and someone made a patch doing
> something similar.
Oh, this is interesting. Have you run into any cases where what others
implemented independantly was better than what you did?
BTW, this is the kind of discussion on POV 3.5 that I was waiting for. I'm
very happy. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nathan Kopp
Subject: Re: MegaPov is dead. Long live MegaPov+?
Date: 13 Sep 2000 21:29:17
Message: <39c029ed@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote...
> Nathan Kopp <Nat### [at] koppcom> wrote:
> :> Which details are you thinking of? Do you mean getting a stable syntax,
> :> getting "size" to work correctly, making glows work more like
> :> objects...etc.
>
> : Yes, those would be the details that I'm thinking of. :-)
>
> Since when has megapov cared about stable syntax?-)
Since I started working on POV 3.5 and got the "stable features" mentality
stuck in my head. I let the Smellenbergh brothers know that they can add
glows to MegaPov 0.6 if they want to. :-)
-Nathan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
