POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.beta-test : RC5 Camera bug Server Time
29 Jul 2024 14:11:45 EDT (-0400)
  RC5 Camera bug (Message 11 to 15 of 15)  
<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Initial 10 Messages
From: Rune
Subject: Re: RC5 Camera bug
Date: 1 Jun 2002 16:31:37
Message: <3cf92f29$1@news.povray.org>
Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> "Rune" wrote:
>> He said that if a matrix transformation is applied *after* the
>> look_at vector, the error message says that it might help to make
>> the look_at the last statement. This error message does not make
>> sense with the POV-Ray 3.5 camera.
>
> No, but the warning itself does.

I'm not sure what you mean. We may agree.

My point is that both the occurrence of the warning and the error make
sense, but the warning text should be changed.

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World:  http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated May 20)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Ring:  http://webring.povray.co.uk


Post a reply to this message

From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: RC5 Camera bug
Date: 1 Jun 2002 16:38:37
Message: <3cf930cd@news.povray.org>
In article <3cf92f29$1@news.povray.org> , "Rune" <run### [at] mobilixnetdk>
wrote:

> My point is that both the occurrence of the warning and the error make
> sense, but the warning text should be changed.

Well, the warning is the same for both the 3.1 and 3.5 code and it cannot with
absolute certainty check correctly if version 3.1 or 3.5 was active when the
camera was declared at the time this check is made.  WHile the message is not
perfect, it isn't completely wrong either.

    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

From: Rune
Subject: Re: RC5 Camera bug
Date: 1 Jun 2002 16:45:31
Message: <3cf9326b$1@news.povray.org>
Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> Well, the warning is the same for both the
> 3.1 and 3.5 code and it cannot with absolute
> certainty check correctly if version 3.1 or 3.5
> was active when the camera was declared at the
> time this check is made.  WHile the message is
> not perfect, it isn't completely wrong either.

In a case like this I would presume that the warnings being correct for
the actual version of the software would be of higher priority.

In any case, to avoid too much confusion, the warning could be changed
from:

"Making look_at the last statement may help"

to:

"Making look_at the last statement may help if the version is set to
3.1"

or similar. But I think it would be better to drop it completely.

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World:  http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated May 20)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Ring:  http://webring.povray.co.uk


Post a reply to this message

From: Mark Weyer
Subject: Re: RC5 Camera bug
Date: 3 Jun 2002 03:39:07
Message: <3CFB0FF6.FEE59A87@frege.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de>
OK, apparently I confused look_at with direction.
But anyway, you said

> The docs clearly explain that the order
> dependencies have been removed in the 3.5 camera.  Any oder will yield exactly
> the same effect.

while the manual (RC5, Redhat Linux, 300MHz, 64MB) says:
   The look_at modifier changes both up and right
   so you should always specify them before look_at.
   Also the angle calculation depends on the right vector
   so right should precede it.
in paragraph 6.4.1.5

  Mark Weyer


Post a reply to this message

From: ingo
Subject: Re: RC5 Camera bug
Date: 3 Jun 2002 09:28:59
Message: <Xns92229E08E5A90seed7@povray.org>
in news:3CFB0FF6.FEE59A87@frege.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de Mark Weyer 
wrote:

>    The look_at modifier changes both up and right
>    so you should always specify them before look_at.
> 

Will be removed,

Thanks,

Ingo


Post a reply to this message

<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Initial 10 Messages

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.