On 23-9-2014 19:54, clipka wrote:
> I have no doubt that the Prox Pattern macros are perfectly fine. I
> presume that they just happen to make use of a language construct that's
> broken, which may also be used in (and therefore affect) other materials.
>
> Say, do the vanished non-proxed objects perchance also make use of a
> texture_map?
>

Right. This is what I found:

- The proximity pattern textures have the following build-up with 
pigment_pattern and a texture_map:
   texture {
     pigment_pattern {
       average
       pigment_map {
         #if( proximity_pattern_strength != 0 )
           [ proximity_pattern_strength*3 df3_pattern scale 1/texture_scale]
         #end
         #if( slope_pattern_strength != 0 )
           [ slope_pattern_strength*0.6 slope { y altitude <0,1,0> } 
color_map { [0 rgb 1] [1 rgb 0] } scale 140 * 1/texture_scale ]
         #end
         #if( noise_pattern_strength != 0 )
           [ noise_pattern_strength *0.4 bozo color_map { [0 rgb 0] [1 
rgb 1] } scale 4 * noise_scale ]
           [ noise_pattern_strength *0.3 bozo color_map { [0 rgb 0] [1 
rgb 1] } scale 1 * noise_scale]
           [ noise_pattern_strength *0.2 bozo color_map { [0 rgb 0] [1 
rgb 1] } scale 0.33 * noise_scale ]
           [ noise_pattern_strength *0.1 bozo color_map { [0 rgb 0] [1 
rgb 1] } scale 0.1 * noise_scale ]
         #end
       }
     }
     texture_map { map }
     scale texture_scale
   }

- Consequently, in my image, the fountain, the columns, the arcs, and 
the combined ridges, window sills, window arcs, are missing (part of) 
their shadows.

- As far as I can tell, all other elements have rendered correctly.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message