Hello,

Early this morning I decided to open up POV-Ray 3.7.b.28 to make a gear 
macro. Everything went fine until I tried to render my code. A window 
popped up with this message:

"Failed to set render options (Cannot handle request.).
See message pane for details.
[OK]"

The message pane had this to say:

"Please obtain an updated version of this application.
Failed to start render: Cannot handle request."

So today I did just that; I downloaded and installed POV 3.7.b.29. I'm 
getting the same message, and POV refuses to render! The "extend" option 
worked just fine for opening up the editor, yet I can't render a scene. 
My brother came in and suggested I turn back the clock. I set my clock 
to 2008 and was able to render again.

So what's the deal here? Do I have to turn back time, every time I want 
to render something? It seems odd that POV would suddenly do this. Maybe 
it has has something to do with the new year - Y2K9 if you will.

I think all the work being put into POV is great, don't get me wrong. I 
just wish I knew what was going on here :(

Sam

Post a reply to this message

stbenge <^@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I think all the work being put into POV is great, don't get me wrong. I
> just wish I knew what was going on here :(

Just a semi-clever way of *absolutely* limiting beta lifetime gone wrong, as it
seems. Probably added a while ago already and forgotten about it. Or too much
optimism when releasing the .29.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> stbenge <^@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I think all the work being put into POV is great, don't get me wrong. I
>> just wish I knew what was going on here :(
> 
> Just a semi-clever way of *absolutely* limiting beta lifetime gone wrong,
> as it seems. Probably added a while ago already and forgotten about it. Or
> too much optimism when releasing the .29.

The theory is that a .30 should have come out before even the temporary
limit. We should have never reached the absolute permanent limit without a
new beta.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>> stbenge <^@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think all the work being put into POV is great, don't get me wrong. I
>>> just wish I knew what was going on here :(
>> Just a semi-clever way of *absolutely* limiting beta lifetime gone wrong,
>> as it seems. Probably added a while ago already and forgotten about it. Or
>> too much optimism when releasing the .29.
> 
> The theory is that a .30 should have come out before even the temporary
> limit. We should have never reached the absolute permanent limit without a
> new beta.

Oh well. At least I can get POV 3.7b to work by reversing the date! All 
is not lost :)

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 21:15:27 -0800, stbenge <^@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> clipka wrote:
>>> stbenge <^@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I think all the work being put into POV is great, don't get me wrong. I
>>>> just wish I knew what was going on here :(
>>> Just a semi-clever way of *absolutely* limiting beta lifetime gone wrong,
>>> as it seems. Probably added a while ago already and forgotten about it. Or
>>> too much optimism when releasing the .29.
>> 
>> The theory is that a .30 should have come out before even the temporary
>> limit. We should have never reached the absolute permanent limit without a
>> new beta.
>
>Oh well. At least I can get POV 3.7b to work by reversing the date! All 
>is not lost :)

Look for "Random Coder"'s post in Uh-oh! I think it's time...

He gives a work around.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 21:15:27 -0800, stbenge <^@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>> clipka wrote:
>>>> stbenge <^@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I think all the work being put into POV is great, don't get me wrong. I
>>>>> just wish I knew what was going on here :(
>>>> Just a semi-clever way of *absolutely* limiting beta lifetime gone wrong,
>>>> as it seems. Probably added a while ago already and forgotten about it. Or
>>>> too much optimism when releasing the .29.
>>> The theory is that a .30 should have come out before even the temporary
>>> limit. We should have never reached the absolute permanent limit without a
>>> new beta.
>> Oh well. At least I can get POV 3.7b to work by reversing the date! All 
>> is not lost :)
> 
> Look for "Random Coder"'s post in Uh-oh! I think it's time...
> 
> He gives a work around.

Thanks for showing me that. It worked!

Sam

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Just a semi-clever way of *absolutely* limiting beta lifetime gone wrong, as it
> seems. Probably added a while ago already and forgotten about it. Or too much

This is in fact the case: I had completely forgotten that I had a hard
limit in it. New beta tonight (my time, i.e. the next 8-10 hours) will fix
this.

-- Chris

Post a reply to this message

Chris Cason wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>> Just a semi-clever way of *absolutely* limiting beta lifetime gone wrong,
>> as it seems. Probably added a while ago already and forgotten about it.
>> Or too much
> 
> This is in fact the case: I had completely forgotten that I had a hard
> limit in it. New beta tonight (my time, i.e. the next 8-10 hours) will fix
> this.

If there was no beta extension at all, at least you'd have an excuse to keep
releasing betas. No offense intended, but it almost feels as if beta
extension just allowed you to stop giving releases at all without getting
complaints ("it expired already!"), instead of helping in those rare cases
where a beta got delayed *a day or two*.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> If there was no beta extension at all, at least you'd have an excuse to keep
> releasing betas. No offense intended, but it almost feels as if beta
> extension just allowed you to stop giving releases at all without getting
> complaints ("it expired already!"), instead of helping in those rare cases
> where a beta got delayed *a day or two*.

  Maybe you didn't intend that to be offensive, but it surely sounded like
that to me.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message