"LanuHum" <Lan### [at] yandexru> wrote:
> to clipka:
> Over the weekend, I'll check.
> My system allows nodes make the most insane texture


Look BlendPov-alternative: screenshots

Post a reply to this message

Am 12.08.2016 um 17:30 schrieb LanuHum:
> "LanuHum" <Lan### [at] yandexru> wrote:
>> to clipka:
>> Over the weekend, I'll check.
>> My system allows nodes make the most insane texture
> 
> 
> Look BlendPov-alternative: screenshots

Thanks!
Did you compare the results of the development version with those of
POV-Ray 3.7.0?

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>
> Thanks!
> Did you compare the results of the development version with those of
> POV-Ray 3.7.0?

If you expect the time difference, then it does not exist.
Povray-3.7.0:
first test: 53 sec
second test: 49 sec

Povray-dev:
50 sec (screenshot)
second test: 52 sec

Post a reply to this message

Am 12.08.2016 um 18:30 schrieb LanuHum:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Did you compare the results of the development version with those of
>> POV-Ray 3.7.0?
> 
> If you expect the time difference, then it does not exist.

No, I was refering to the render output: Are the resulting images the same?

If not, that would be bad news.

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 12.08.2016 um 18:30 schrieb LanuHum:
> > clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >> Did you compare the results of the development version with those of
> >> POV-Ray 3.7.0?
> >
> > If you expect the time difference, then it does not exist.
>
> No, I was refering to the render output: Are the resulting images the same?
>
> If not, that would be bad news.

I posted a result for comparison.
In my opinion, there is no difference.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/09/2016 07:55 PM, clipka wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I have a special development version that needs exhaustive testing of
> complex textures, so if you have a scene that uses wild combinations of
> the following features (and you happen to be using Unix), it would be
> greatly appreciated if you could give it a shot:
>
> - patterned textures
> - material_map
> - layered textures
> - overriding the texture of objects
> - non-canonical syntax to define textures (e.g specifying `pigment`
> directly on an object)
> - any other texture-related stuff you can think of
>
> The version in question can be found here:
>
>   https://github.com/c-lipka/povray/tree/refactor/texture
>
> (source code only at this time)
>
> Also, I expect more follow-up versions to be coming, so I might ask you
> to re-test with the same scenes later.
>
A material mapped from Norbert Kern's collection and run against:

---
A - POV-Ray 3.7.0.unofficial

B - POV-Ray 3.7.1-alpha.8764097.unofficial (current 3.7.1)

C - POV-Ray 3.7.1-alpha.8738139.unofficial (refactor/texture)

Is showing differences in all three when run with radiosity. See the 
attached image where A, B and C shown left to right.

If run without radiosity A & C match well, but our current 3.7.1 is 
still different.

If run without radiosity and finish statements A, B & C match well, so 
something is different in finish {} with our current 3.7.1.

Unsure what might be expected and not. Where would you like to go from 
here?

Bill P.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'nk0065compare.png' (190 KB)

Preview of image 'nk0065compare.png'

On 08/31/2016 10:12 AM, William F Pokorny wrote:
> On 08/09/2016 07:55 PM, clipka wrote:
>
> Bill P.

Having looked at more results I have seen nothing which dies outright as 
yet. About a third run so far have little change across the three 
versions. The rest do and I'd say mostly in the shadows. There is I see 
a new shadow cache message out of the refactored code.

Another with somewhat significant differences is attached.

Bill P.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'nk0008compare.png' (244 KB)

Preview of image 'nk0008compare.png'

Am 31.08.2016 um 17:52 schrieb William F Pokorny:
> On 08/31/2016 10:12 AM, William F Pokorny wrote:
>> On 08/09/2016 07:55 PM, clipka wrote:
>>
>> Bill P.
> 
> Having looked at more results I have seen nothing which dies outright as
> yet. About a third run so far have little change across the three
> versions. The rest do and I'd say mostly in the shadows. There is I see
> a new shadow cache message out of the refactored code.

What do you mean by that last sentence? Do you mean there's a new
warning during compilation or some such?

Since shadow cache handling happens in `source/core/render/trace.cpp`,
I've had a cursory glance over the differences between the two branches,
but didn't notice anything obvious related to the shadow cache.

Can you name the exact location where you "see a new shadow cache
message", and what that message actually is?

Post a reply to this message

Am 31.08.2016 um 16:12 schrieb William F Pokorny:

> A - POV-Ray 3.7.0.unofficial
> 
> B - POV-Ray 3.7.1-alpha.8764097.unofficial (current 3.7.1)
> 
> C - POV-Ray 3.7.1-alpha.8738139.unofficial (refactor/texture)
> 
> Is showing differences in all three when run with radiosity. See the
> attached image where A, B and C shown left to right.
> 
> If run without radiosity A & C match well, but our current 3.7.1 is
> still different.
> 
> If run without radiosity and finish statements A, B & C match well, so
> something is different in finish {} with our current 3.7.1.
> 
> Unsure what might be expected and not. Where would you like to go from
> here?

Just to make sure -- you're saying that the version to be tested (the
refactor/texture one) matches good old 3.7.0, while the current version
that you used as reference shows differences?

My first instinct would be "duh! accidently fixed something along the
way!" But that might be misleading, as I might have instead accidently
removed a fix for something that was broken in 3.7.0.

The first thing I would like you to do is let me know the details of the
finish you were using. I presume this is not just an empty `finish{}`
block, right?

Post a reply to this message

On 08/31/2016 01:03 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 31.08.2016 um 17:52 schrieb William F Pokorny:
>> On 08/31/2016 10:12 AM, William F Pokorny wrote:
>>> On 08/09/2016 07:55 PM, clipka wrote:
>>>
>>> Bill P.
>>
>> Having looked at more results I have seen nothing which dies outright as
>> yet. About a third run so far have little change across the three
>> versions. The rest do and I'd say mostly in the shadows. There is I see
>> a new shadow cache message out of the refactored code.
>
> What do you mean by that last sentence? Do you mean there's a new
> warning during compilation or some such?
>
> Since shadow cache handling happens in `source/core/render/trace.cpp`,
> I've had a cursory glance over the differences between the two branches,
> but didn't notice anything obvious related to the shadow cache.
>
> Can you name the exact location where you "see a new shadow cache
> message", and what that message actually is?
>

In the re-factored code I see the new message just below the usual 
shadow ray test message as in:

Shadow Ray Tests:            345087   Succeeded:                 33718
Shadow Cache Hits:            31372

The 3.7.0 and current 3.7.1 has just:

Shadow Ray Tests:            422995   Succeeded:                 66614

and

Shadow Ray Tests:            410766   Succeeded:                 66001

respectively.

I've run a good bit more and I now wondering if some of the differences 
in shadows are not tangled in the normal handling. Really smooth 
results, as for example with Jaime's car paint materials, show no 
differences.

Bill P.

Post a reply to this message