Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> MichaelJF <mi-### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> > What could be the usage of this? A very simple example would be that you would
> > be able to write a POV-macro to convert wavefront-OBJ-Files to POV-mesh2-syntax
> > in POV itself.
>
> This has been an idea for years for the hypothetical new SDL that POV-Ray
> might get some day. (The idea is for the SDL to be redesigned so that,
> while being at least as easy to use as the current SDL, it additionally
> supports all kinds of features that would make an expressive and powerful
> scripting language where doing things like making an input file parser
> would be much easier than with the current SDL. Also, it would be a lot
> faster than the current SDL, as it would optimally be byte-compiled.)
>
> The current SDL is far from being optimal for that task.
>
> --
>                                                           - Warp

Thank you,

in my eyes your respone settles the matter completely. I apologize for being a
bit more frank yesterday than usual but sometimes things are "lost in
translation", especially when it comes to figures of speech. At the moment I'm
hunting down a flaw with baking occlusion maps using Jaimes macros. The only
thing that is clear totally, is that it has nothing to do with Jaimes work. It
is an problem with my input. So I analyze the special meshes with my statistcal
software and use features like sorting big data sets (to have the actual
coordinates of the vertices and the normals to a face in one line - or
observation, as we statisticians call it), which cannot be implemented in POV
even with a kind of a new readln-directive. So far I detected that Wings
produces some inverted normals (normals into the object, which would produce
wrong results with the meshcam) but not very much. This result could have been
yielded with a readln-feature because no sorting was needed. In this case the
normal_indices were identical to the face_indices and every vertex has its own
normal (and only one). But this should only give an impression of the things I'm
working at. May be my failure is only having a wrong uv-mapping (the next issue
I would address). But if my suspicions are right, one could be able to write a
macro to repair this things (in the most simple situation of only smooth edges),
and this was my original intention.

Best regards,
Michael

Post a reply to this message