 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am I correct in assuming that uv_mapping is not working correctly? I may
have overlooked something, but I did not find a reference about the
subjetct.
I ask this because I have a scene with uv_mapped image_maps which render
correctly in v3.6, but are totally invisible in v3.7. If I switch off the
uv_mapping parameter, they become visible again.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Am I correct in assuming that uv_mapping is not working correctly? I may
> have overlooked something, but I did not find a reference about the
> subjetct.
>
> I ask this because I have a scene with uv_mapped image_maps which render
> correctly in v3.6, but are totally invisible in v3.7. If I switch off the
> uv_mapping parameter, they become visible again.
something is evidently amiss here, though in my tests I don't get totally
invisible maps (nevertheless it's not working as expected, either).
please post minimal example scene.
-- Chris
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chris Cason" <del### [at] deletethistoo povrayorg> schreef in
bericht news:456064d2$1@news.povray.org...
>
> please post minimal example scene.
>
Here is an example.
In fact, the image appears to be visible, but it needs scaling up to cover
the object again, which it doesn't need with v3.6.
My initial scene was seen from much farther away, so it looked like the
image_map had disappeared.
Hope this helps.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'uv_mappingtest37.zip' (3 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
