> (RC5, Redhat Linux, 64MB, 300MHz, why does this matter?)

(I suspect it rarely does, but i'm sure it's frustrating to the team to not
have that information when it *is* necessary.)

> The camera definition does not behave how I think it should.
> The following is a minimal scene.
> The two cameras should be equivalent, but are not.
> They were back in 3.1g.
> For once it is NOT a problem with #declared cameras.

I have to point out that you're putting look_at before specifying your right
and up vectors; I was under the impression that this was illegal in 3.5.

Then again, if it's illegal, then it's a bug that POV-Ray is letting you do
it without giving you an error, I'd think.

 - Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

Post a reply to this message