On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 13:12:46 +0100, Bernd Fuhrmann <Sil### [at] gmxde>
wrote:
> Why not? It isn't that difficult. People write XHTML, MathML and even 
> SVG by hand. At least I do. So why not POVRay?

You know, there are a few not technical users of POV-Ray. While average
"artist" can easily write and understand sphere{0 r scale x*4 pigment{Red}}
anything more complicated would make understanding harder.

> It would be possible to write material libraries, object libraries and 
> so on without clobbering the global namespace.

You have material and object libraries nowadays in include files.
Can you point me an example of useful namespace application within POV-Ray
scene from average unskilled user point of view?

> It would become possible to access the camera settings to adjust certain 
> values.

See screens.inc include file solutions.

> This would make the implementation of HUD systems possible 

Head Up Displays you mean? Which application you mean exactly?

> (useful if you want to mark or label certain things in your scene).

? Anything you can't do currently?

> One could even convert whole models to meshes and apply mesh 
> modificators on them. This is AFAIK not yet possible in POVRay.

That depends what you mean by "convert" and "modificators".
ie. http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lakes/1434/images/createmesh.jpg

> Ok, maybe some of these things can be done in POVRay file format.

IMO that's not POV-Ray file format but POV-Ray features which makes things
possible.

> But if they can be done, how clean can they be done?

Some prefer question: how hard can they be done. I think writing simple
include file is easier than introducing new parser and changing habits of
large community.

ABX

Post a reply to this message