 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 27.02.2016 um 09:15 schrieb clipka:
> Nope; while the page the URL takes you to /does/ link to three pre-built
> Windows binaries, it also leads to two source file packages, which
> contain the entire source code for /all/ versions, including the Unix stuff.
I stand corrected.
Downloading (while having my 3rd mug of tea)
Will report back :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 27.02.2016 um 09:31 schrieb ThH:
> Downloading (while having my 3rd mug of tea)
>
> Will report back :)
Hmmm...
Output attached.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'optics.png' (222 KB)
Preview of image 'optics.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 27.02.2016 um 10:19 schrieb ThH:
> Am 27.02.2016 um 09:31 schrieb ThH:
>
>> Downloading (while having my 3rd mug of tea)
>>
>> Will report back :)
>
> Hmmm...
>
> Output attached.
Doesn't seem to make much of a difference, does it?
Looks like I need more help from you folks to figure out where exactly
the problem is rooted.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 27.02.2016 um 10:57 schrieb clipka:
> Doesn't seem to make much of a difference, does it?
I second that ;)
> Looks like I need more help from you folks to figure out where exactly
> the problem is rooted.
Was the optics_mod.pov or optics_mod_2.pov provided above of any help?
Sure.. The original scene is destroyed.
My hope is/was the simplified version might give you an idea, you find a
solution, which - by lucky chance - solves all photon/media related
problems.
--
Thorsten aka ThH
No... I've never did any coding using C, C++, ...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 27.02.2016 um 11:16 schrieb ThH:
> Was the optics_mod.pov or optics_mod_2.pov provided above of any help?
>
> Sure.. The original scene is destroyed.
>
> My hope is/was the simplified version might give you an idea, you find a
> solution, which - by lucky chance - solves all photon/media related
> problems.
Unfortunately not. I need you to toy around more to give me that one
breakthrough idea.
It's really frustrating that there is not the slightest glitch to be
seen with the Windows version.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 27.02.2016 um 12:00 schrieb clipka:
> Unfortunately not. I need you to toy around more to give me that one
> breakthrough idea.
Understood.
> It's really frustrating that there is not the slightest glitch to be
> seen with the Windows version.
Lucky windows-user so to say ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 27.02.2016 um 12:05 schrieb ThH:
> Am 27.02.2016 um 12:00 schrieb clipka:
>
>> Unfortunately not. I need you to toy around more to give me that one
>> breakthrough idea.
>
> Understood.
>
>> It's really frustrating that there is not the slightest glitch to be
>> seen with the Windows version.
>
> Lucky windows-user so to say ;)
3 different pics by changing 1 line of the original optics.pov...
Does this raise any interest or additional frustrations?
Yes... The pics are brighter. I used assumed_gamma .5.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'optics_sandbox_r_01.png' (200 KB)
Download 'optics_sandbox_r_10.png' (187 KB)
Download 'optics_sandbox_r_20.png' (157 KB)
Preview of image 'optics_sandbox_r_01.png'
Preview of image 'optics_sandbox_r_10.png'
Preview of image 'optics_sandbox_r_20.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 27.02.2016 um 13:54 schrieb ThH:
> Am 27.02.2016 um 12:05 schrieb ThH:
>
>> Am 27.02.2016 um 12:00 schrieb clipka:
...
>>> It's really frustrating that there is not the slightest glitch to be
>>> seen with the Windows version.
>>
>> Lucky windows-user so to say ;)
No, actually not. I know that there /is/ a bug lurking below the
surface, and unless I know exactly what causes it, I cannot rule out
that it may also strike at Windows users under /some/ circumstances.
> 3 different pics by changing 1 line of the original optics.pov...
>
> Does this raise any interest or additional frustrations?
I dunno... care to tell me /what/ you changed? ;)
> Yes... The pics are brighter. I used assumed_gamma .5.
Why on earth would you do that?
(Then again, I did ask you to experiment, so...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 27.02.2016 um 13:54 schrieb ThH:
> 3 different pics by changing 1 line of the original optics.pov...
What really intrigues me, and what I would like to ask you to try and
investigate, is why only /some/ of the light rays are affected; why
don't /all/ the blue and /all/ the red rays end up blazingly white?
There must be /some/ reason for this, and I reckon that it might lead to
a useful clue.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 27.02.2016 um 16:21 schrieb clipka:
> I dunno... care to tell me /what/ you changed? ;)
This is what gave the 3 different results:
#declare MirrorTex1 =
texture {
pigment {color White}
//finish {ambient 0 diffuse 0 reflection 1/1}
//finish {ambient 0 diffuse 0 reflection 1/10}
finish {ambient 0 diffuse 0 reflection 1/20}
}
Original reflection - Image ...01...
10% - Image ...10...
5 % - Image ...20...
Keeping my fingers crossed!
>> Yes... The pics are brighter. I used assumed_gamma .5.
>
> Why on earth would you do that?
> (Then again, I did ask you to experiment, so...)
Maybe my CRT-Monitor is too dark. That why I did it ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
