Hi, finally got the time to start betatesting! I had to put my barely
installed W98SE into a working state, indeed...

Well, what I wanted to ask is why radiosity still needs +QR to work. I
expected radiosity{} block activating radiosity by itself, like
photons{}activate photons without the need of an external +QP. Note I'm not
talking about using the INI option inside the SDL. I'm not even making a
Feature Request! ;)

Sorry if this was disscused before and I missed it. I searched a bit, but
found nothing, and I can't figure why it needs an external switch/option.

Jaime Vives Piqueres
W98SE on AMD Athlon 1.2Ghz, 256MB SDRAM,  >50Db CPU fan.

Post a reply to this message

"Jaime Vives Piqueres" <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote in message
news:3b98abd5$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Well, what I wanted to ask is why radiosity still needs +QR to work.

IMHO this isn't a bad thing, since it makes it easy to do quick test renders
without having to edit your source file. Of course, this could be handled in
different ways, but if it ain't broke....

Post a reply to this message

Tom Melly wrote:
> 
> "Jaime Vives Piqueres" <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote in message
> news:3b98abd5$1@news.povray.org...
> >
> > Well, what I wanted to ask is why radiosity still needs +QR to work.
> 
> IMHO this isn't a bad thing, since it makes it easy to do quick test renders
> without having to edit your source file. Of course, this could be handled in
> different ways, but if it ain't broke....

And it is consistance with the way the official version of the program
has operated since radiosity was introduced.

-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

news:3B98B3A0.4A6CE23D@pacbell.net...
>
> Tom Melly wrote:
> >
> > "Jaime Vives Piqueres" <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote in message
> > news:3b98abd5$1@news.povray.org...
> > >
> > > Well, what I wanted to ask is why radiosity still needs +QR to work.
> >
> > IMHO this isn't a bad thing, since it makes it easy to do quick test
renders
> > without having to edit your source file. Of course, this could be
handled in
> > different ways, but if it ain't broke....

  Well, perhaps it happens to me only, but I'm tired of turning on the
monitor after a long render to see that I forgot to put +qr (while the code
on the scene is ok). Just done it now, after sending the first message...:(

   If the reason it's only that it is handy for turning on/off rad without
editing, why not have such a switch for photons also? (wich I'm not claiming
for...) ...or why not having it enabled by default? Anyhow, if you don't use
a radiosity{} block it doesn't works, isn't?

> And it is consistance with the way the official version of the program
> has operated since radiosity was introduced.

  But if current radiosity has almost nothing to do with original one!!!
And, of course, many things have been removed or changed without considering
consistance with historical design...  What I think is not consistent is
having a perfectly legal code not parsing, when I do not have specifically
siwtched it off. Hmmm...

  Anyone knows a *good* reason that I can't figure out?

Jaime Vives Piqueres
W98SE on AMD Athlon 1.2Ghz, 256MB SDRAM,  >50Db CPU fan.

Post a reply to this message

I just leave +qr in my ini file and ignore the warning. not really a fix,
but easier than editing

-tgq

"Jaime Vives Piqueres" <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote in message
news:3b98c455$1@news.povray.org...
>

> news:3B98B3A0.4A6CE23D@pacbell.net...
> >
> > Tom Melly wrote:
> > >
> > > "Jaime Vives Piqueres" <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote in message
> > > news:3b98abd5$1@news.povray.org...
> > > >
> > > > Well, what I wanted to ask is why radiosity still needs +QR to work.
> > >
> > > IMHO this isn't a bad thing, since it makes it easy to do quick test
> renders
> > > without having to edit your source file. Of course, this could be
> handled in
> > > different ways, but if it ain't broke....
>
>   Well, perhaps it happens to me only, but I'm tired of turning on the
> monitor after a long render to see that I forgot to put +qr (while the
code
> on the scene is ok). Just done it now, after sending the first
message...:(
>
>    If the reason it's only that it is handy for turning on/off rad without
> editing, why not have such a switch for photons also? (wich I'm not
claiming
> for...) ...or why not having it enabled by default? Anyhow, if you don't
use
> a radiosity{} block it doesn't works, isn't?
>
> > And it is consistance with the way the official version of the program
> > has operated since radiosity was introduced.
>
>   But if current radiosity has almost nothing to do with original one!!!
> And, of course, many things have been removed or changed without
considering
> consistance with historical design...  What I think is not consistent is
> having a perfectly legal code not parsing, when I do not have specifically
> siwtched it off. Hmmm...
>
>   Anyone knows a *good* reason that I can't figure out?
>
> Jaime Vives Piqueres
> W98SE on AMD Athlon 1.2Ghz, 256MB SDRAM,  >50Db CPU fan.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

in news:3b98c455$1@news.povray.org Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:

>   Well, perhaps it happens to me only, but I'm tired of turning on
>   the 
> monitor after a long render to see that I forgot to put +qr (while
> the code on the scene is ok).

You could put a +qr statement in your main ini-file and control the use 
of radiosity with a switch like in the default radiosity scene from the 
insert menu.

Ingo

-- 
Photography: http://members.home.nl/ingoogni/
Pov-Ray    : http://members.home.nl/seed7/

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:

>   Anyone knows a *good* reason that I can't figure out?

I guess that when it first introduced radiosity was a very experimental feature,
mostly used as a quality add-on (hence the +Q) so people had the possibility to
turn it off and on to "improve" the scene, otherwise they had to put a #if
switch with a flag to control it. One tested the file without radiosity and then
turned it on with +QR in the last stages. Even now I sometimes use +QR to switch
between radiosity or non radiosity versions of the scenes during testing.

However, now that scenes can be entirely and easily designed around radiosity, I
agree that +QR is more a problem than anything else, as already evidenced by the
people who have tried to run some of the advanced scenes without it...

G.

--

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
Graphic experiments
Pov-ray gallery

Post a reply to this message

>   Anyone knows a *good* reason that I can't figure out?

I've always assumed it was because radiosity is an experimental feature.
True it has been part of Pov-Ray for a long time now but that has more to do
with Pov's long development cycles. Whenever you render a scene it always
warns you that it is experimental, and no backwards compatibility is
promised. How about Tony[B]'s Beta intro,

"Photons and dispersion rule! And if you've used MegaPOV before, you should
know how this all works. Radiosity is faster, easier to use/understand, and
looks a lot nicer than in 3.1. It's still experimental though, so keep that
in mind when creating your scenes. "

Of course if this explanation were a law then media should also use a
switch.

Post a reply to this message

Thomas Lake <tla### [at] homecom> wrote:
: Of course if this explanation were a law then media should also use a
: switch.

  AFAIK media is not experimental.

-- 
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}//                     - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

>   AFAIK media is not experimental.

Hehe...need to check things before I open my mouth.

Post a reply to this message