POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.binaries.images : unexplained : Re: unexplained Server Time
6 Oct 2024 12:24:00 EDT (-0400)
  Re: unexplained  
From: James Holsenback
Date: 18 Aug 2014 16:38:45
Message: <53f26455@news.povray.org>
On 08/18/2014 10:13 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 12.08.2014 19:08, schrieb James Holsenback:
>
>>>> The Sam's test scene (OTOTest.pov) renders fine here with the latest
>>>> POV-Ray and UberPOV stuff (Windows versions).
>>>
>>> here's what I'm doing:
>>>
>>> #declare Floor =
>>> union {
>>>      object {
>>>          OTO( <-2.5,-2.5,0>, <2.5,2.5,1>, 0.075, texture { BaseTexture
>>> scale 1 } )
>>>          }
>>>      box { <-2.5,-2.5,0.075>, <2.5,2.5,0.075> pigment { srgb 1 } finish
>>> {diffuse 0.6 specular 0.15 roughness 1e-5} }
>>>      rotate x*90
>>>      rotate y*0
>>>      }
>>>
>>> kind of funny that it works with some versions (perforce/git 3.7 stable)
>>> but not other git repos ... 32 vs 64 bit? compiler?? configure
>>> changes???
>>
>> found OTOTest.pov file laying around in some obscure corner ... here's
>> results
>
> I've got some good news: While I'm still unable to reproduce the error,
> I /am/ now able to exactly reproduce the output you're seeing (see
> attached image), by changing the OTO_FMask function
>
>      #local OTO_FMask = function{ pattern{ pigment_pattern{
>          checker 0, 1 warp{planar} } } }
>
> to something that never returns 1; so it would seem that the error
> scrambles one of the statements in this function definition.
>
> Can you please dig further in this direction to figure out exactly what
> part of this is broken? (I guess this will lead us much faster to the
> root cause than knowing exactly which commit introduced it.)
>

Well had some time after all ... I played with the OTO_FMask function, 
but hey there's not much to change right? I started looking at the 
numbers being passed to OTO_Get_Mask, on line 133 of the attached 
include I added a debug. Everything looked legitimate, so I dropped down 
a couple of lines and added debugs for the corner finding test. Those 
sets of vectors looked like legitimate formed vectors as well, but the 
wall is incomplete. Didn't notice that notice that the vectors were ALL 
falling into the 1st test until I changed condition to false on line 
136. Now the vectors pass through BOTH of the test and the wall in complete.


Post a reply to this message


Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (5 KB)

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.