Subject:
|
Re: Inline POV code in official parts?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Tue, 1 May 2007 21:42:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3743 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Tore Eriksson wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> > - It could be construed the POV is the Official rendering program of the
> > LDraw.org library. This can not and will not be the case. While POV might be
> > the most widely used, it is not the only high quality rendering program in use
> > (Bryce, Rhino/Flamingo, 3D Studio Max, Blender to name a few) .
>
> That's a very heavy argument against EmbPOV. It would be a great thing if we
> could just have a very few basic features, say clipped by, pattern wrap and
> maybe one or two other and make it a generic syntax for alternative code.
>
> >
> > Adding POV code sounds like a quick fix to problems such as primitive
> > substitution gaps but as I think about more I can see the list growing quite
> > large. Since we don't even have an Official standard for DAT code, I don't
> > think adding another standard would be beneficial.
> >
> > -Orion
>
> Despite all cons, it improves quality of the POV output, quality that cannot be
> added any other way. Therefore I think it really should be allowed, but of
> course totally optional.
>
> Another pro is that we already have EmbPOV in the official Parts library.
>
>
> /Tore
More than three years have passed, the only thing that has happened is that the
SteerCo and/or the Standard Committee has decided not to allow EmbPOV in the
official Parts folder. A vauge discussion on creting yet another folder for
Ldraw POV code has ended in... nothing, I guess.
Meanwhile, we miss the power of pattern wrapping for high-Q minifig faces and
more. Not to mention the maxifig heads; we had very good looking maxiheads,
working right now with L3P and no tweeking with any new paths settings. Perfect
- but we lost that opportunity, hopefully we didn't lose a promising,
enthusiastic part author along with that(?)
I suggest we really reconsider the unfortunate decision to ban EmbPOV from the
official Parts folder. Or, give that new POV-code folder say a two or three
months respite, and if no satisfactory, smoothly working POV folder solution has
come up, then allow EmbPOV. Because that would meet all above requirements today
- if it hasn't been for that unfortunate ban.
/Tore
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Inline POV code in official parts?
|
| Why not make official POV-Ray Lego bricks and skip the whole LDraw to POV-Ray conversion? Use the same names, scale, and coordinates and all you need is a small script to convert the LDraw lines into POV- Ray lines using the same translations. Or (...) (18 years ago, 1-May-07, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Inline POV code in official parts?
|
| (...) That's a very heavy argument against EmbPOV. It would be a great thing if we could just have a very few basic features, say clipped by, pattern wrap and maybe one or two other and make it a generic syntax for alternative code. (...) Despite (...) (21 years ago, 13-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
18 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
