On 27.07.2017 05:14, clipka wrote:
> Am 27.07.2017 um 05:24 schrieb Sven Littkowski:
> 
>>> At the moment, all seems to point at the pigment definition as the
>>> culprit, as that's the only relevant thing we've always changed. You
>>> should at least /try/ it with a plain pigment, to either confirm or
>>> refute this theory.
>>>
>>> If you can confirm it, we know that's what we have to examine further;
>>> in that case you'll probably want to post the image map at last, so tha
t
>>> we can see what might be so special about it.
>>>
>>> Otherwise we can be sure that it's a red herring, and that we have to
>>> dig someplace else.
>>>
>> Nope. Here's a one-color pigment. :-(
> 
> Okay, now this leaves surprisingly few possible explanations. I can only
> come up with the following:
> 
> - You might be using a rare and buggy version of POV-Ray.
> 
> To check this, I recommend you post the exact POV-Ray version number
> (and let us know which operating system you're using).
> 
> - You might be using a different scene file and/or bump map image file
> than those you posted.
> 
> - There might be a relevant line break introduced in your post of the
> scene file that we've been overlooking.
> 
> To check these two, I recommend you temporarily rename your scene and
> auxiliary files (image file and bump map), then try to re-create the
> scene from your own postings and render it. You'll get parse errors,
> make sure to fix only those actually reported.
> 
> - You might be using low-quality settings (`+q7` or lower).
> 
> To check this, I recommend you post the message output of the render,
> and/or run the render with `+giFOO.INI` and post the generated FOO.INI he
re.
> 



---
Diese E-Mail wurde von AVG auf Viren geprüft.
http://www.avg.com

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'space - launcher - balloon - type 001 - moon runnings.png' (210 KB)

Preview of image 'space - launcher - balloon - type 001 - moon runnings.png'