What would be really cool is, if the POV-Ray engine were a COM object, and
you fed it interfaces to other COM objects to render.  That way my script
parser and CAD software would simply expose shape and texture interfaces to
the engine, allowing me to embed the POV-Ray Engine anywhere, even a
WebPage.  This model should be flexible enough to allow me to aggregate
custom shapes and textures through the script parser or CAD software.  I
could even have a local Open-GL engine or remote renderer (using DCOM) ,
that I could hot-swap in my client App.

If you're interested and like to know details, email me.  I'd be more than
willing to join the group to do this.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 30 Oct 1998 22:16:28 -0500, "J. M. Rowlett"
<row### [at] andrewcmuedu> wrote:

>What would be really cool is, if the POV-Ray engine were a COM object, and
>you fed it interfaces to other COM objects to render.  

If you're gonna crosspost, please do it right.  

Here's the relevant part of the new POVLEGAL:

All executables, documentation, modified files and descriptions of
the same must clearly identify themselves as a modified and
unofficial version of POV-Ray. Any attempt to obscure the fact
that the user is running POV-Ray or to obscure that this is an
unofficial version expressly prohibited.

POV-Ray may not be linked into other software either at compile-
time using an object code linker nor at run-time as a DLL,
ActiveX, or other system. Such linkage can tend to blur the end-
user's perception of which program provides which functions and
thus qualifies as an attempt to obscure what is running.

To allow POV-Ray to communicate with outside programs, the official
versions of POV-Ray include several internal communication "hooks" 
for it to call other tasks, often called an Application Programming 
Interface, or API. For example: the generic part of POV-Ray provides
operating system shell-out API commands. The Windows version has a 
GUI-extension API and the ability to replace the text editor.
Modification to these APIs or other officially supported
communication mechanisms to increase functionality beyond that of 
the official version IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Post a reply to this message

Ronald L. Parker wrote in message <363b8392.7446507@news.povray.org>...
>On Fri, 30 Oct 1998 22:16:28 -0500, "J. M. Rowlett"
><row### [at] andrewcmuedu> wrote:
>
>>What would be really cool is, if the POV-Ray engine were a COM object, and
>>you fed it interfaces to other COM objects to render.
>
>If you're gonna crosspost, please do it right.
>
>Here's the relevant part of the new POVLEGAL:
>....
>the official version IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.
>

I cannot complain about POV (I have not payed for it and, notwithstanding
what says Richard Stallman, if you do not pay for something, you have no
right about it... but to fix it by yourself) but unfortunately POV Team is
growing more and more anti-Windows. Who knows, may be we might start
studying OpenGL and DirectX and getting knowledgeable about
Microsoft/SiliconGraphics Fahrenheit project... as Bryce demonstrates, a few
compentent and determined people can write a great rendering tool. You just
have be able to parse POV scripts.

Alessandro Coppo
a.c### [at] iolit
By the way, an ANASHAMED Microsoft henchman...

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 1 Nov 1998 10:02:00 +0100, "Alessandro Coppo" <a.c### [at] iolit>
wrote:

>I cannot complain about POV (I have not payed for it and, notwithstanding
>what says Richard Stallman, if you do not pay for something, you have no
>right about it... but to fix it by yourself) but unfortunately POV Team is
>growing more and more anti-Windows. 

This is an interesting statement, coming from someone who actually has
POV-Ray 3.1 available for his platform.  I'm sure some Unix
afficionados here would have a slightly different perception of it, if
they bothered to read this group.  Maybe they're all over in
povray.unix... nope, only Windows has its own group.  Must be an
anti-Windows thing.

>Who knows, may be we might start
>studying OpenGL and DirectX and getting knowledgeable about
>Microsoft/SiliconGraphics Fahrenheit project... 

As has been stated many, many times before, OpenGL and DirectX are
practically useless for raytracing.  Previewing, maybe, but that is
the domain of a modeler.  Though a nice GPL modeler would be great...

>as Bryce demonstrates, a few
>compentent and determined people can write a great rendering tool. You just
>have be able to parse POV scripts.

Bryce was written by a lot of competent and determined people who were
getting a steady paycheck from Metatools (or whatever they were called
when Bryce was written).  Still, a free POV-alike is something that
has been suggested by a lot of people.  Somehow, everyone who has said
that they'd like to write their own free version of POV has never had
anything to show for it.  I'm not against the idea, so if you've got
the time and the knowhow, feel free to jump right in and get it
started.  A good place to start might be
http://www.gnu.org/software/panorama/panorama.html .  I hear they're
looking for someone to write a POV parser.  Your first task, though,
is likely to be porting their code to work on the Windows platform.

That's the nice thing about that new rule in POVLEGAL.  Nobody will
ever pollute POV with platform-specific crud like COM and DirectX or a
shortsighted implementation of Unix shared libraries (as in panorama)
while the POV-Team is there to exercise some control over the
direction of development.

Post a reply to this message

I have to disagree here...you have the right to complain...even if
something is free, it should still be working to the best possible
standards, free does not equate to shit!

Having said this, most problems i've seen or had with povray come from
not RTFM'ing, and singular problems with a specific 'puter setup.

Alessandro Coppo wrote:
> 
> Ronald L. Parker wrote in message <363b8392.7446507@news.povray.org>...
> >On Fri, 30 Oct 1998 22:16:28 -0500, "J. M. Rowlett"
> ><row### [at] andrewcmuedu> wrote:
> >
> >>What would be really cool is, if the POV-Ray engine were a COM object, and
> >>you fed it interfaces to other COM objects to render.
> >
> >If you're gonna crosspost, please do it right.
> >
> >Here's the relevant part of the new POVLEGAL:
> >....
> >the official version IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.
> >
> 
> I cannot complain about POV (I have not payed for it and, notwithstanding
> what says Richard Stallman, if you do not pay for something, you have no
> right about it... but to fix it by yourself) but unfortunately POV Team is
> growing more and more anti-Windows. Who knows, may be we might start
> studying OpenGL and DirectX and getting knowledgeable about
> Microsoft/SiliconGraphics Fahrenheit project... as Bryce demonstrates, a few
> compentent and determined people can write a great rendering tool. You just
> have be able to parse POV scripts.
> 
> Alessandro Coppo
> a.c### [at] iolit
> By the way, an ANASHAMED Microsoft henchman...

-- 
The only good politician is a dead politician !!
Politics or religion = corruption and true evil.
Believe 1% of what you see or hear.
The laws that politicians make are mostly bad laws,
  we'd do far better without them - the politicians AND their laws.

Post a reply to this message

Ronald L. Parker wrote:
> 
> This is an interesting statement, coming from someone who actually has
> POV-Ray 3.1 available for his platform.  I'm sure some Unix
> afficionados here would have a slightly different perception of it, if
> they bothered to read this group.  Maybe they're all over in
> povray.unix... nope, only Windows has its own group.  Must be an
> anti-Windows thing.

The reason for this is: Any user who has a Unix system running,
is able to install and run POV. For a Windows user this is not
necessarily true! ;-)

> That's the nice thing about that new rule in POVLEGAL.  Nobody will
> ever pollute POV with platform-specific crud like COM and DirectX or a
> shortsighted implementation of Unix shared libraries (as in panorama)
> while the POV-Team is there to exercise some control over the
> direction of development.

I completely agree. What is nice about your statement is that you
mentioned "crud like COM or a shortsighted implementation of Unix
shared libraries" in one sentence. Unbiased. Nice.

Markus

Post a reply to this message

Hi, Markus,

> The reason for this is: Any user who has a Unix system running,
> is able to install and run POV. For a Windows user this is not
> necessarily true! ;-)

  Why not? POV-Ray v3.1 for Windows installs and runs on Windows 95/NT and I
believe on Windows 98, also. Of course, there is always the MS-DOS version
of POV-Ray v3.1 for those running Windows v3.1 or Windows for Workgroups.

regards,
- Alan

Post a reply to this message

Alan Kong <alk### [at] compuserveNO-SPAMcom> wrote in article
<363EBBA7.752C6B94@compuserveNO-SPAM.com>...
> Hi, Markus,
> 
> > The reason for this is: Any user who has a Unix system running,
> > is able to install and run POV. For a Windows user this is not
> > necessarily true! ;-)
> 
>   Why not? POV-Ray v3.1 for Windows installs and runs on Windows 95/NT
and I
> believe on Windows 98, also. Of course, there is always the MS-DOS
version
> of POV-Ray v3.1 for those running Windows v3.1 or Windows for Workgroups.
> 

	I think it was meant to be an anti-windows, all windows users are as thick
as shit type comment, not one on the availability of POV for the windows
platform.

	Just ignore him, he may grow up one day.

-- 
Scott Hill
Sco### [at] DDLinkscouk
Software Engineer (and all round nice guy)
Author of Pandora's Box
Company homepage : http://www.ddlinks.demon.co.uk

"The best trick the devil ever pulled was convincing people he didn't
exist..."
								- Verbal Kint.

"the Internet is here so we can waste time talking about nothing in 
 particular when we should be working" - Marcus Hill.

Post a reply to this message

Scott Hill wrote:
> 
>         I think it was meant to be an anti-windows, all windows users are as thick
> as shit type comment, not one on the availability of POV for the windows
> platform.
> 
>         Just ignore him, he may grow up one day.

1) I think I'm grown up.
2) It wasn't anti-windows (can't be, since I'm using Windows since
   the dark days of 3.0, and, hell, I _love_ it ;-)
3) It was meant to be an ironic remark.

But feel free to ignore me, I can live with it.

Markus

Post a reply to this message

Hi, Markus,

> 3) It was meant to be an ironic remark.

  Oh. I see now that I'd completely missed the ";-)" in your earlier post.

- Alan

Post a reply to this message