|
 |
On 2016-12-05 2:01 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 05.12.2016 um 06:56 schrieb omniverse:
>> clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
>>> I /think/ I might have broken something - this render of the benchmark
>>> scene doesn't looks quite right... >_<
>>
>> heh, well, only way I can get that same thing is by commenting out everything
>> after the fog statement. If that was the reason it's more like a scene deletion
>> than a bug! :)
>
> No, I'm currently refactoring the bounding hierarchy code. So I'm quite
> sure I've taught POV-Ray to utterly fail to look up any objects in the
> bounding box tree. Or the BSP tree if +BM2 is used. Or the simple list
> of objects when +BM0 is used.
>
> Which in a sense means I'm on the right track: Until now all the three
> modes used completely different code. Now I've made them completely
> interchangeable, hiding behind a common interface.
>
> So the fact that I get the same broken picture regardless of the +BMn
> setting means that the implementations of the different bounding
> hierarchies have been adapted to the new interface consistently; and
> that the render engine does indeed consistently use the new common
> interface... just not /correctly/ ;)
>
See - you're making progress :-). It's sometimes hard to imagine that
the transition from "inconsistent" to "consistent" sometimes passes
through "consistent but broken" first and that can be considered a step
forward.
David Buck
Post a reply to this message
|
|
