Here's a new version of POV-Ray to test:

https://github.com/POV-Ray/povray/releases/tag/v3.8.0-alpha.9322209

The most notable changes pertain to some defaults:

- The `ambient` finish setting now defaults to 0.0 instead of 0.1.
- The camera `right` vector now defaults to x*image_width/image_height
instead of 1.33.

For the new defaults to kick in, `#version 3.8` or higher must be
specified as the _very first_ statement in the scene file (or a
corresponding command line / INI file setting).


Be advised that this binary-only release wants to reside in an existing
v3.7.x installation.


Happy testing!

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Here's a new version of POV-Ray to test:
>
> https://github.com/POV-Ray/povray/releases/tag/v3.8.0-alpha.9322209
>
> The most notable changes pertain to some defaults:
>
> - The `ambient` finish setting now defaults to 0.0 instead of 0.1.
> - The camera `right` vector now defaults to x*image_width/image_height
> instead of 1.33.
>
> For the new defaults to kick in, `#version 3.8` or higher must be
> specified as the _very first_ statement in the scene file (or a
> corresponding command line / INI file setting).
>
>
> Be advised that this binary-only release wants to reside in an existing
> v3.7.x installation.
>
>
> Happy testing!

Thanks.
Did any Uberpov/HG-Povray feature get merged in yet?

Post a reply to this message

On 09/22/2017 04:54 AM, Mr wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> 
> Thanks.
> Did any Uberpov/HG-Povray feature get merged in yet?
> 
> 
The lemon object and new uv mapping capability for the cone and cylinder 
were merged in some time ago.

Christoph didn't mention it in this most recent post, but I believe the 
new ovus features and related ovus uv mapping changes were recently 
merged too.

Bill P.

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Here's a new version of POV-Ray to test:
>
[snip]
> Be advised that this binary-only release wants to reside in an existing
> v3.7.x installation.
>

So, it seems that installing this into v3.7.1 beta 9 (which is a 'stand-alone'
version of Pov-Ray) is OK to do(?)-- but I'm not absolutely sure. The only
reason I ask is that the new version's download page says, "This is a
binary-only development release; to install, copy the binary into an existing
POV-Ray 3.7 installation." It doesn't specifically say "3.7.x" there.

Sorry if I sound like I'm nit-picking or over-analyzing the situation.

Post a reply to this message

"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> > Here's a new version of POV-Ray to test:
> >
> [snip]
> > Be advised that this binary-only release wants to reside in an existing
> > v3.7.x installation.
> >
>
> So, it seems that installing this into v3.7.1 beta 9 (which is a 'stand-alone'
> version of Pov-Ray) is OK to do(?)-- but I'm not absolutely sure. The only
> reason I ask is that the new version's download page says, "This is a
> binary-only development release; to install, copy the binary into an existing
> POV-Ray 3.7 installation." It doesn't specifically say "3.7.x" there.
>
> Sorry if I sound like I'm nit-picking or over-analyzing the situation.

It's okay either place, I put the first 3.8 alpha into my 3.7.1 beta 9 bin
folder and this current alpha into 3.7.1 release candidate bin folder.

And just to be sure, tried v3.7.0 now too. Okay there as well.

I'm renaming the original pvengine64.exe file and using the new pvengine64.exe,
I have not used any others such as 32 bit.

Post a reply to this message

"omniverse" <omn### [at] charternet> wrote:
> "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

> >
> > So, it seems that installing this into v3.7.1 beta 9 (which is a 'stand-alone'
> > version of Pov-Ray) is OK to do(?)

> It's okay either place, I put the first 3.8 alpha into my 3.7.1 beta 9 bin
> folder and this current alpha into 3.7.1 release candidate bin folder.
>
> And just to be sure, tried v3.7.0 now too. Okay there as well.
>
Thanks!

Post a reply to this message

Am 25.09.2017 um 05:01 schrieb Kenneth:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Here's a new version of POV-Ray to test:
>>
> [snip]
>> Be advised that this binary-only release wants to reside in an existing
>> v3.7.x installation.
>>
> 
> So, it seems that installing this into v3.7.1 beta 9 (which is a 'stand-alone'
> version of Pov-Ray) is OK to do(?)-- but I'm not absolutely sure. The only
> reason I ask is that the new version's download page says, "This is a
> binary-only development release; to install, copy the binary into an existing
> POV-Ray 3.7 installation." It doesn't specifically say "3.7.x" there.
> 
> Sorry if I sound like I'm nit-picking or over-analyzing the situation.

Technically, it should work best with any POV-Ray v3.7.x release proper
- which de facto means v3.7.0. (POV-Ray v3.7.1-rc1 should also work
fine, but that installer is no longer officially available.)

It /may/ work ok with any v3.7.x-beta, but it isn't designed to do so,
and there may be subtle problems arising out of it - stuff like being
unable to find certain files, or loading a file from an unexpected
directory.

The background there is that POV-Ray for Windows uses a portion of its
version number in directory names and registry keys, namely `vX.Y`
(which I refer to as the "generation") for any POV-Ray vX.Y.Z final
release. Subsequent versions of the same generation are supposed to
replace earlier installations - but only as soon as they're out of beta,
so beta versions instead use `vX.Y-beta` for their directory names and
registry keys, so that installing them won't ruin a good installation of
the predecessor version.

Alpha versions don't come with an installer, so that risk doesn't exist
there; to the contrary, they need portions of the predecessor
installation to live; so alpha versions use plain `vX.Y` for their
directory names and registry keys.

(And in the case of v3.8.0-alpha, `v3.8` won't do, as the predecessor
version's generation was v3.7.)

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 25.09.2017 um 05:01 schrieb Kenneth:
> >>
[Clipka wrote:]
> >> Be advised that this binary-only release wants to reside in an existing
> >> v3.7.x installation.
> >>
> > So, it seems that installing this into v3.7.1 beta 9 (which is
> > a 'stand-alone' version of Pov-Ray) is OK to do(?)--
>
> Technically, it should work best with any POV-Ray v3.7.x release proper
> - which de facto means v3.7.0. (POV-Ray v3.7.1-rc1 should also work
> fine, but that installer is no longer officially available.)
>
> It /may/ work ok with any v3.7.x-beta, but it isn't designed to do so,
> and there may be subtle problems arising out of it - stuff like being
> unable to find certain files, or loading a file from an unexpected
> directory.

Well, I'm learning something new every day ;-) Thanks for the clarification (and
I hope I understand it all.) For one thing, it seems that I've been erroneously
assuming "3.7x" and "3.7.x" to mean the same thing. (I've always used those
interchangably-- including "3.7xx"-- as a kind of lazy 'shorthand', in my own
mind and here in the newsgroups, for the same meaning-- not realizing that they
may have different meanings technically.) And yes, I've already run into the
'loading of a file from an unexpected directory' problem, in some of the
previous alphas/betas-- due no doubt to my lazy/hazy understanding of the
underlying processes.
>
> The background there is that POV-Ray for Windows uses a portion of its
> version number in directory names and registry keys, namely `vX.Y`
> (which I refer to as the "generation") for any POV-Ray vX.Y.Z final
> release.
[snip]

Thanks. I definitely don't want to screw up the registry! (OR my current beta 9
install.)

SO...I'll stick to installing this newest version into 3.7.0 proper.

Post a reply to this message

Am 25.09.2017 um 22:12 schrieb Kenneth:

> Well, I'm learning something new every day ;-) Thanks for the clarification (and
> I hope I understand it all.) For one thing, it seems that I've been erroneously
> assuming "3.7x" and "3.7.x" to mean the same thing. (I've always used those
> interchangably-- including "3.7xx"-- as a kind of lazy 'shorthand', in my own
> mind and here in the newsgroups, for the same meaning-- not realizing that they
> may have different meanings technically.)

In some sense, versions "3.7x" and "3.7.x" do indeed mean the same thing
- namely in that if "3.7x" is to be interpreted as /any/ version of
POV-Ray, it can only be interpreted as a (sloppy) shorthand for "3.7.x".
Otherwise it would have to be interpreted as
"Three-dot-SeventySomething", which does not exist (not yet at any rate,
and possibly never will, if only for technical reasons).

The origin of this imprecise notation is probably the syntax and
semantics of the `#version` statement and `version` variable, which
encode the version number as a floating point value, with the second
decimal place representing the third portion of the version number, e.g.
both `#version 3.7` and `#version 3.70` identifying v3.7.0, `#version
3.62` identifying v3.6.2, etc.

Another reason might be that POV-Ray's version numbering scheme has
never been officially codified until quite recently.

As for proliferation of that sloppy notation, it can be blamed on lots
of people, including members of the dev team. I guess even I myself did
use it on several occasions in the past.

Post a reply to this message

Well, that explains why I can't access the help menu / docs with either F1 or
the drop-down menu.

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:

> Another reason might be that POV-Ray's version numbering scheme has
> never been officially codified until quite recently.

Is there documentation / explanation for how that all works?
Just curious, because one thing I'd like to see folks voluntarily adopt is
version numbers in their filenames and as comments in the code.

I often can't figure out which file I have, or what the latest file of the 12
all-named-the-same "myUsefulMacros.inc" is, and if I understood the reasoning
behind the classification, I could start to play along from home.  ;)

It would also be useful for the Insert-Menu, parts of which I tend to
extensively edit, and am paranoid that I'm going to accidentally obliterate with
some new version installation....

Thanks!   :)

Post a reply to this message