Ron Parker wrote:

> On Wed, 08 Jul 1998 11:53:51 -0700, K. Tyler <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
> >I recieved the folloing fatal error message after a 50%
> >render
> >
> >> ERROR too many nested refracting objects in scene.
>
> >For the record the word refraction appears no where in the scene.
> >By changing the while declare statements to reduce the overall
> >object count the error goes away But I need the scene as is or the
> >smoothness of my intended object dissapears.
>
> >Any clue people.
>
> for the record, the word refraction is now entirely optional.  The presence
> of an ior that is not 1 turns on refraction for that object.
>
> The problem is that POV must keep a "stack" of objects and their iors in
> order to know what ior it is returning to when it exits an object.  This
> stack has a finite size (in POV 3.02, it was 100 objects) and you're
> overrunning it.  If you union a bunch of glass spheres, for example, you
> may be "inside" over a hundred objects, in which case you'll have this
> problem.
>



> I haven't seen the scene, so my advice may be useless, but is this a case
> where you could use merge instead of union?

  Not really.
  The scene is formatted roughly as follows:

  #declare Count = 0
  #while (Count < 360)
  box{<-1,-1,-1>,<1,1,1>scale 2  translate x*Count rotate x+y*Count pigment{bla
bla color_map{
  [0    rgbf*.5][1 Red*.75]}}}
  #declare Count = Count*.1
  #end

But no where is an ior or refraction or for that
matter any standard finish or normal statement.

Because of the filter component I even tried
upping the max_trace_level to 100 no luck.

Perhaps I should explicitly declare a refraction and ior at 0 ?

While I'm asking advice I ran into a problem/limitation on
another scene I was working on last week that had the same
basic scene structure as the one above. What I had intended
to do was after creating one set of objects I was going to wrap
it in a union tag it with a declared name and then using the object
statement create multiple copies.
Interestingly enough though pov would allow me to wrap it in a union
and within the union statement even apply rotations and transforms
but when I added a #declare MyObject = to the top and then tried
use the object it spit the famous > undeclared object MyObject error.
And I clearly declared the object at the top and there were no spelling
errors Is this a known limitation when using math operatives to create
objects, instead of creating a multitudes of objects statements.
Weird I say.
If any of this makes no sense to you that's ok because it hasn't to me so far
either.

Thanks for the help folks

Ken Tyler


Ken

Post a reply to this message