[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kpovmodeler-devel
Subject:    Re: Frame System
From:       Andreas Zehender <az () azweb ! de>
Date:       2006-10-04 19:27:25
Message-ID: 45240B1D.9050404 () azweb ! de
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi Miguel,

Miguel Angel Gómez Márquez schrieb:

> But eventually it will have to be like that.
> But seems that i jump some steps like
> 1.- there is no frames system yet
> 2.- there is not a 100% stable cluster support in KPM
> 3.- worrying about cluter bottleneck, when not having the cluster and 
> the cluster support and the animation system.
>
hey, that's life :-p

I wouldn't worry about cluster support. I have a patch that adds the 
possibility to add custom options to povray and let you specify a path 
where the scene should be placed. And that should be enough, isn't it? 
The povray command is already configurable.

> ---
> And with your idea you have to check for every property in every object
> whether a variable name or the actual value should be exported which is
> IMHO quite ugly.
> ---
> Lol, ugly sounds like bad coding, lets say its quite "barbaric" or 
> "rude" but
> its the optimal solution if we want to export to POVRay (as 1or 2 if 
> separating the animation file as an include).
>

 From my experience in KPovModeler and at work: Ugly or barbaric code as 
you call it is never a solution, is almost allways too inflexible and 
has to be rewritten later. If there is a bottleneck, the solution for it 
has to be elegant, not rude. Better think about a solution for some 
weeks if you see no elegant solution.
You know I am a perfectionist, but that's the reason for the elegant 
codebase and the quality of the program.

> Thinking about a previous comment that KPM is KPM with some renderer 
> (POVRay renderer in this case)
> If we forget the POVRay exportation, (which i still think its VERY 
> important, and this may be because, i've worked much with POVRay code 
> and its renderer (i've actually touched POVRay renderer code)) then 
> well the Andreas idea would be the very best (far best) for this case. 
> but it would inhibit (or make it very very very hard) to implement 
> exportation to povray code), and well in this case, there is a KPM 
> file format "who cares about .pov?"
> (not sarcastic nor cynical, i meant it as it looks like)


Well, if an animation with 1000 frames is exported to povray, do you 
think that can be modified with the povray code? That exported scene can 
be used as backup, or to resample the animation in different 
resolutions, but nothing more. You need the kpm file to change pathes, 
scripts or functions to modify the scene. Changing 1000 constants is not 
an option. And to bind customers to your application is a common trick 
in economy *grin*

> I've already started working a little with this, and i hope (i almost 
> promise) that within 2 weeks i'll have something working.
>
> Perhaps this weekend but cant be sure.


Please do me and especially you a big favour: Do not start coding before 
you have an architecture in mind and before I give you the go for that. 
To start with coding works for small projects, but not for such huge 
projects. I know you are enthusiastic and unpatient, but I have to slow 
down you here to avoid frustration if you coded something for some days 
or weeks and I say: "No, not that way" afterwards.

Regards,
Andreas


List archive and information: https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kpovmodeler-devel

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]