[Raytrace] Where To Start?

[John D. Upton]

Mike,

At 10:44 AM 12/7/2001 -0600, Michael Peck wrote:
>no generally accepted standards for specifying tilts & rotations. 
>Documenting differences among programs that atm's are likely to use might 
>be a worthwhile FAQ item.

     Yes, I agree.  That is exactly the type of information the FAQ should 
contain.  It also leads into the next point you raised.

>I'd like to make a modest administrative suggestion here. OSLO .len files 
>are just text files, and they're usually quite short. Embedding the 
>complete file in your posts separated from the text by asterisks or 
>something won't waste a

     I can include the full OSLO file for future examples.  There are two 
problems I see with this, however.  The first is that there have been 
changes in file format as OSLO has evolved.  I have both Version 5.4 and 
Version 6.1 installed on my system.  I use 6.1 for some things and 5.4 for 
others.  The reason I keep the older version around is that it supported 12 
surfaces while the new version supports only 10.  I have an on-going design 
project that needs 11 surfaces.

     The second problem is that I was attempting to keep this list 
generalized to all ray-tracers and not overly advocate a specific 
one.  That is why I posted the text form of the design file descriptions to 
the list rather than the files themselves.  The text prescriptions are 
somewhat portable from one program to another (I think) and contain all the 
information about a design in more or less human readable format.  Peter 
John Smith has raised the same concern about ZEMAX files.

     As you pointed out above, the FAQ should reflect how to do things in 
the most common programs.  I didn't want to "standardize" this list on 
OSLO.  Some members are already quite capable with other programs and may 
not want to learn OSLO.  They have much general ray-tracing knowledge to 
share and I don't want them to not participate because we are all using a 
program they are not familiar with.  Standardization here becomes two-edged 
sword.

     What say you, List?  Can we do both effectively?  Perhaps we could use 
OSLO for most of the concept examples (showing the text of the saved design 
files -- *not* file attachments) and have the users of other programs point 
out differences in how to do common tasks as we go along.  I am willing to 
do whatever the list wants in this regard.

>I'd also suggest - if the site owner and list administrators are willing - 
>maintaining a file upload/download area for list members (maybe the public 
>too). I think Peter Smith is right that the best way to learn this stuff is

     Ken is the person to address this.  I think he already has some means 
of accepting file donations for posting on the ATM Site.  Maybe we just 
need a separate page to list the design files with a short description of 
the contents.

>astray just give up and go back to your last working layout. OSLO LT seems 
>to be pretty stable (at least version 5.4 was), and I've rarely crashed it 
>just

     I agree that OSLO is pretty stable.  Version 5.4 is very stable for me 
on Windows 95, 98, and Me.  Version 6.1 has given me some problems on 
Windows Me, but I've learned to work around them.  As you say, they have 
never crashed hard enough to damage any system files.


John D. Upton
Georgetown, TX
<http://www.atm-workshop.com/>     "The ATM's Workshop"
<http://members.aol.com/RonWin20/> "Ronchi For Windows Home Page"