 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trf de> wrote:
> Looking at the render of the scene you provided, I cannot see anything
> wrong. What wrong output should one expect to see in the scene you posted?
>
> Thorsten
Well; in comparison to the image traced by POVRay 3.5, also posted
to this board, I have this big black blotch in the center of my
image :( I tried to up the quality today to see if it was that
which caused the effect, but as you can see it actually got
worse, in my opinion that is, with the blackness almost totally
covering the ship! And no, I didn't get any kind of error-messages.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'povmessagepane.txt' (3 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
fomhorian wrote:
>
> Well; in comparison to the image traced by POVRay 3.5, also posted
> to this board, I have this big black blotch in the center of my
> image :( I tried to up the quality today to see if it was that
> which caused the effect, but as you can see it actually got
> worse, in my opinion that is, with the blackness almost totally
> covering the ship! And no, I didn't get any kind of error-messages.
The scene you posted renders the same in 3.5 and 3.6 here. No 'ship' is
visible at all. You will need to post a scene and images showing the
difference with *exactly* this scene for being of any use to trace down
a possible problem.
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 01 May. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> The scene you posted renders the same in 3.5 and 3.6 here. No 'ship' is
> visible at all. You will need to post a scene and images showing the
> difference with *exactly* this scene for being of any use to trace down
> a possible problem.
>
> Christoph
I did and I have! I put both a POVRay 3.5 and a POVRay 3.6 version
of the e x a c t same scene on this board. I also put the scene without
the mesh here, check both beta-test and beta-test.binaries.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <web.40c31ee49346345c307441310@news.povray.org> , "fomhorian"
<fom### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> I did and I have! I put both a POVRay 3.5 and a POVRay 3.6 version
> of the e x a c t same scene on this board. I also put the scene without
> the mesh here, check both beta-test and beta-test.binaries.
You don't understand. Beta or not, we need a *complete* but minimal scene
to reproduce the problem. The information needed to reproduce a problem is
outlined in:
From: Alan Kong <ako### [at] povrayWWWSPAMCOMorg>
Newsgroups: povray.announce.frequently-asked-questions
Subject: bug reporting
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 20:32:49 -0700
Message-ID: <fpupiu02i1198jbb38i3o06hv6is1a3uar@4ax.com>
Xref: news.povray.org povray.announce.frequently-asked-questions:50
<http://news.povray.org/fpupiu02i1198jbb38i3o06hv6is1a3uar%404ax.com>
Without a complete and minimal scene, we will not be able to reproduce your
problem and thus will not be able to help you!
Thorsten
PS: Please note that the final release of POV-Ray 3.6 will be in less than
48 hours, so should this really be a problem in POV-Ray and not in your
scene, we will need your complete but minimal scene *soon*. Thus, arguing
with us about the information you provided makes it more likely you will
have to wait many month for the problem to be corrected, should it indeed be
in POV-Ray and not in your scene.
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
fomhorian wrote:
>
>>The scene you posted renders the same in 3.5 and 3.6 here. No 'ship' is
>>visible at all. You will need to post a scene and images showing the
>>difference with *exactly* this scene for being of any use to trace down
>>a possible problem.
>
> I did and I have! I put both a POVRay 3.5 and a POVRay 3.6 version
> of the e x a c t same scene on this board. I also put the scene without
> the mesh here, check both beta-test and beta-test.binaries.
>
There is nothing in your postings that enables us to reproduce your
problem. Without this you can't expect anyone to be able to explain the
difference you observe.
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 01 May. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Okidoki, but I don't know if it is that small...
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'stormer.pov.txt' (386 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
fomhorian wrote:
> Okidoki, but I don't know if it is that small...
You don't seriously want to call that minimal, do you?
The most likely explanation of the difference you observe is that one of
your extremely ugly finish parameters is interpreted differently in 3.6
as a side effect of another change. When i remove all those finishes
the results i get in 3.5 and 3.6 are idetical.
I really can't see a reason why one would try to use something like
finish{
ambient 0.05
diffuse 0.4
brilliance 2.5
metallic 1.5
specular 2 roughness 0.05
phong 0.5 phong_size 30
reflection{
<0,1,0.5>*0.005,0.05
metallic 0.25
fresnel on
falloff 0.5
exponent sqrt(2)
}
}
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 01 May. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <c9vdmc$64c$1@chho.imagico.de> , Christoph Hormann
<chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> The most likely explanation of the difference you observe is that one of
> your extremely ugly finish parameters is interpreted differently in 3.6
> as a side effect of another change. When i remove all those finishes
> the results i get in 3.5 and 3.6 are idetical.
Well, the point is not if they are ugly but if they are valid. We should
try to figure out which change causes this and maybe issue an error if any
of the specified parameters is outside valid bounds (assuming that is the
problem)...
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <c9vdmc$64c$1@chho.imagico.de> , Christoph Hormann
<chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> I really can't see a reason why one would try to use something like
I guess it is some program generating this output. As you apparently have
both 3.5 and 3.6 running, could you try to comment out one of the parameters
until you find the one interpreted differently?
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> In article <c9vdmc$64c$1@chho.imagico.de> , Christoph Hormann
> <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:
>
>
>>I really can't see a reason why one would try to use something like
>
>
> I guess it is some program generating this output. As you apparently have
> both 3.5 and 3.6 running, could you try to comment out one of the parameters
> until you find the one interpreted differently?
It seems to be the reflection 'exponent sqrt(2)'. Note i also get
occasional render freezes (i.e. the render halts and the program can
only be stopped by multiple CTRL-Cs) in 3.6 when using the fresnel
reflection. Since i never had any problems with fresnel reflection
before i assume this is something specific to this scene (i.e. the
mesh). Lowering max_trace_level strongly or not using radiosity avoids
this (so maybe the ray recursion handling of radiosity in combination
with reflection does not work properly although i have rendered a lot of
scenes with radiosity + reflection without problems).
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 01 May. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
