Am 17.10.2018 um 15:57 schrieb jr:
> hi,
> 
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>>> archive with scene to same email?
>> The usual procedure, yes.
> 
> did you receive the email?

Nope.

Post a reply to this message

Am 21.10.2018 um 01:51 schrieb clipka:
> Am 17.10.2018 um 15:57 schrieb jr:
>> hi,
>>
>> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>>>> archive with scene to same email?
>>> The usual procedure, yes.
>>
>> did you receive the email?
> 
> Nope.

Nevermind. I was a bit confused. Yes, the e-mail did reach me, and I
managed to come up with a fix in no time flat(*), but hadn't gotten
around to providing feedback yet, or push the fix to the repo for that
matter.

(*Interestingly, the bug was in a piece of code I had always been
suspicious about whether I had implemented it correctly. Turns out I
hadn't.)

Post a reply to this message

On 6-10-2018 13:14, William F Pokorny wrote:
> Aside 2: IIRC there is still a thread collision in the current 
> implementation (which Thomas, in 3.8 no longer needs to be "naked" 
> thanks to Christoph's updates) - 
Hmmm... is that so? I am currently using an isosurface and the 
max_gradient warning only shows if the isosurface is "naked" i.e. 
without #declare.

Using v 3.8.0-xtokenizer.9844488+av609.msvc with Win7

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 10/21/18 3:29 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 6-10-2018 13:14, William F Pokorny wrote:
>> Aside 2: IIRC there is still a thread collision in the current 
>> implementation (which Thomas, in 3.8 no longer needs to be "naked" 
>> thanks to Christoph's updates) - 
> Hmmm... is that so? I am currently using an isosurface and the 
> max_gradient warning only shows if the isosurface is "naked" i.e. 
> without #declare.
> 
> Using v 3.8.0-xtokenizer.9844488+av609.msvc with Win7
> 

While I'm a couple more days busy with real life, please post as simple 
a scene as you can showing the issue. I'll take a look later this week 
should no one else.

While the issue is certainly fixed for simple cases in 3.8, I've myself 
a mental flag(1) set. A "perhaps we sometimes still get no warnings" flag...

--- Detail
On the periphery of testing late last year or early this, I wondered if 
I'd created such a scene while re-arranging scene code. Isosurface 
warnings went away during that code clean up I thought should probably 
not have disappeared.

It was a less simple scene where the isosurface #declare'd name was used 
across multiple CSG blocks also named and used via #declares. I was 
chasing other stuff at the time and didn't immediately follow up. I 
tried a quick scene I "thought" similar prior to my response to you 
above. It though, worked/warned as it should.

The "naked" max gradient for a given isosurface can be different where 
the isosurface scene usage is other than simple - where not just a 
#declare wrapper. Said another way, if you shoot a different collection 
of rays at an isosurface you can easily have different determined max 
gradients(2).

Bill P.

(1) Mental notes. Why I tend toward drowning in detail instead of 
getting things done. Drives too my footnoting madness. :-)

(2) One of several reasons isosurfaces can be difficult to use in 
animations.

Post a reply to this message

Am 21.10.2018 um 09:29 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 6-10-2018 13:14, William F Pokorny wrote:
>> Aside 2: IIRC there is still a thread collision in the current
>> implementation (which Thomas, in 3.8 no longer needs to be "naked"
>> thanks to Christoph's updates) - 
> Hmmm... is that so? I am currently using an isosurface and the
> max_gradient warning only shows if the isosurface is "naked" i.e.
> without #declare.
> 
> Using v 3.8.0-xtokenizer.9844488+av609.msvc with Win7

It doesn't matter whether you use `#declare` or not; what really matters
is whether there are actually rays shot at the isosurface during the render.

So a `#declare`d isosurface that is never actually inserted into the
scene will never get a warning.

Post a reply to this message

On 22-10-2018 23:33, clipka wrote:
> It doesn't matter whether you use `#declare` or not; what really matters
> is whether there are actually rays shot at the isosurface during the render.
> 
> So a `#declare`d isosurface that is never actually inserted into the
> scene will never get a warning.
> 

@ clipka and Bill:

I am probably totally misunderstanding something, but I attach here a 
simple scene of the Kluchikov Ring with a on/off switch between a 
'declared' and a 'non-declared' isosurface. The 'non-declared' one shows 
a max_gradient warning at the end of the render; the 'declared' one does 
not.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'ak_my favourite isosurface test.7z.zip' (2 KB)

hi,

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 21.10.2018 um 01:51 schrieb clipka:
> >> did you receive the email?
>
> Nevermind. I was a bit confused. Yes, the e-mail did reach me,

phew.

> and I
> managed to come up with a fix in no time flat(*), but hadn't gotten
> around to providing feedback yet, or push the fix to the repo for that
> matter.

I saw the weather you were having the past two weeks, and suspected you might be
out sunbathing.  :-)

> (*Interestingly, the bug was in a piece of code I had always been
> suspicious about whether I had implemented it correctly. Turns out I
> hadn't.)


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

Am 23.10.2018 um 08:40 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 22-10-2018 23:33, clipka wrote:
>> It doesn't matter whether you use `#declare` or not; what really matters
>> is whether there are actually rays shot at the isosurface during the 
>> render.
>>
>> So a `#declare`d isosurface that is never actually inserted into the
>> scene will never get a warning.
>>
> 
> @ clipka and Bill:
> 
> I am probably totally misunderstanding something, but I attach here a 
> simple scene of the Kluchikov Ring with a on/off switch between a 
> 'declared' and a 'non-declared' isosurface. The 'non-declared' one shows 
> a max_gradient warning at the end of the render; the 'declared' one does 
> not.

You are aware that the two isosurfaces are not identical? They differ in 
the max_gradient setting.

Not that it would make any difference though - I do get a warning for 
both of them.


Did you double-check that you're really seeing what you think you're seeing?

What version of POV-Ray are we talking about?

Post a reply to this message

On 23-10-2018 18:14, clipka wrote:
> Am 23.10.2018 um 08:40 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> On 22-10-2018 23:33, clipka wrote:
>>> It doesn't matter whether you use `#declare` or not; what really matters
>>> is whether there are actually rays shot at the isosurface during the 
>>> render.
>>>
>>> So a `#declare`d isosurface that is never actually inserted into the
>>> scene will never get a warning.
>>>
>>
>> @ clipka and Bill:
>>
>> I am probably totally misunderstanding something, but I attach here a 
>> simple scene of the Kluchikov Ring with a on/off switch between a 
>> 'declared' and a 'non-declared' isosurface. The 'non-declared' one 
>> shows a max_gradient warning at the end of the render; the 'declared' 
>> one does not.
> 
> You are aware that the two isosurfaces are not identical? They differ in 
> the max_gradient setting.

Correct. My bad. Both max_gradients should be 0.75 (or what ever).

> 
> Not that it would make any difference though - I do get a warning for 
> both of them.

I do not. I only get a warning when the isosurface is /not/ declared.

> 
> 
> Did you double-check that you're really seeing what you think you're 
> seeing?

Yes, absolutely!!

> 
> What version of POV-Ray are we talking about?

v 3.8.0-xtokenizer.9844488+av609.msvc with Win7

You are right (of course you are right!): I had not yet used the alpha 
version 3.8.0-alpha.9861167+av620.msvc14.win as I thought they were more 
or less identical. It shows the warning for both cases indeed. I had not 
been aware that the case had been solved in between. Thanks!

Phwwww..... That was close! I am glad I do not have to put myself under 
psychiatric treatment after all ;-)

[where are my dried frog pills...?]

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 24.10.2018 um 08:40 schrieb Thomas de Groot:

>> What version of POV-Ray are we talking about?
> 
> v 3.8.0-xtokenizer.9844488+av609.msvc with Win7

Ah, the experimetal new tokenizer! Now that changes things. Since we're 
talking about alpha.9861167, I had presumed that you were using at least 
some alpha as well.

> You are right (of course you are right!): I had not yet used the alpha 
> version 3.8.0-alpha.9861167+av620.msvc14.win as I thought they were more 
> or less identical. It shows the warning for both cases indeed. I had not 
> been aware that the case had been solved in between. Thanks!

Has it? I don't recall any such fix, nor it even being necessary. So 
looks like something broke during the refactoring for the tokenizer 
changes. That's conceivable.

I'll investigate that once I turn my attention back to the tokenizer.


> Phwwww..... That was close! I am glad I do not have to put myself under 
> psychiatric treatment after all ;-)
> 
> [where are my dried frog pills...?]

Probably right where I left my glasses.

Post a reply to this message