On 8 Apr 2004 03:31:42 -0400, "Rafal 'Raf256' Maj" <spa### [at] raf256com> wrote:
> Interesting - this spot is beeing in different position in each render 
> (with same source !) so it is some kind of memory-leek or uninitialized 
> variable

Would you like to be a little more precise about version you are talking
about? Later you are saying that you couldn't use 3.6 beta and at the same
paragraph you say you used something different than 3.6 so... is this report
about 3.6 beta (nth), 3.5 or 3.1? I suppose 3.6 too and since only this
version can be fixed then follow-up set.

> (btw You dont use tools like Electric Fance to debug?).

What you mean ? http://www.google.com/search?q=Electric+Fance+debug isn't very
helpful. I'm sure being experienced programmer you already know there are
plenty of debugging tools for different platfroms including memory guards in
POV-Ray itself.

> It seems like Linux version dont have that problem..... I would test if Pov 
> 3.6 for linux do have it but.... someone desided that it's time for 
> expiration

What you mean ? Current expiration time was set to middle of april IIRC.

> Above bug exists in pov 3.6 beta (with Im able to test with little help of 
> hacking ;)

What hacking do you mean ?

ABX

Post a reply to this message

abx### [at] abxartpl news:gd0a70lk1cicva03djlvdv9qecbb2roh48@4ax.com

> What hacking do you mean ?

I use 3.6 beta for windows, since it did expired as we discuss few days 
above Im forcing it to run anyway.

I dont want to change system clock in Linux therefore in Linux I use Pov 
3.5 only.

I noticed a bug described above in Pov 3.6 beta, windows32. 
And bug was not noticed by me iin Pov 3.5 Linux.

> Current expiration time was set to middle of april IIRC.

So between today and discussion "Pov 3.6 expiration again..." there was a 
new pov 3.6 beta? I thought they will announce it here, sory then, Im going 
to download it. 

> These betas expire on April 15th 2004. 

Oh yes, im will download new 3.6
Btw it would be a good idea to put dates also in formay DD-MM-YYYY imho, 
more comfortable for non-english speakers.


-- 
http://www.raf256.com/3d/
Rafal Maj 'Raf256', home page - http://www.raf256.com/me/
Computer Graphics

Post a reply to this message

On 8 Apr 2004 03:31:42 -0400, "Rafal 'Raf256' Maj" <spa### [at] raf256com> wrote:
> 
>Interesting - this spot is beeing in different position in each render 
>(with same source !) so it is some kind of memory-leek or uninitialized 
>variable

Isn't there always some differences in pixel values when using radiosity 
and even without.

-r

Post a reply to this message

rei### [at] rocketmailcom news:40751045$1@news.povray.org

> Isn't there always some differences in pixel values when using radiosity 
> and even without.

I ment in *same* render run twiced

-- 
http://www.raf256.com/3d/
Rafal Maj 'Raf256', home page - http://www.raf256.com/me/
Computer Graphics

Post a reply to this message

"Rafal 'Raf256' Maj" <spa### [at] raf256com> wrote
> So between today and discussion "Pov 3.6 expiration again..." there was a
> new pov 3.6 beta? I thought they will announce it here, sory then, Im going
> to download it.

No, we don't announce it here, we assume that users who consider themselves
sufficiently intelligent to use clearly-labelled beta software are also
intelligent enough to find that a new version is available once the old one
expires, WITHOUT our having to hold their hand and tell them. Even if we *do*
miss the expiration date by a day. All it takes is a single look at the beta
web page to see if beta 3 has been posted. (The other beta users seem to have
managed this feat of mental agility quite neatly.)

Beta users are made quite aware that we do *not* want reports from old betas.
The fact you are posting bug reports here about an expired version (when the
specific reason for the expiration is to prevent just such a thing), added to
your previous complaints about the expiration date system altogether, says to
me that you are not a suitable person to be testing our beta software.

In future please refrain from using POV-Ray betas. Use the official version
if you want, but do *not* download or install anything from us labelled 'beta',
and please cease to use any of our beta software that you have already installed.

thanks for your co-operation,

-- Chris Cason

Post a reply to this message

"Rafal 'Raf256' Maj" <spa### [at] raf256com> wrote
> Btw it would be a good idea to put dates also in formay DD-MM-YYYY imho,
> more comfortable for non-english speakers.

No it would not be a good idea to do so. DD-MM-YYYY format is practically
useless on an international web site, specifically because it (on its own)
lacks any context to tell if it's a US-style date or an international style
date (except in those cases where the day of the month is > 12). In particular
DD-MM-YYYY will confuse a *lot* of Americans.

For example are you able to tell me if 10-05-2004 is the 10th of May or the
5th of Oct ? If you say 'yes' then how ? It could be either, depending on
context and author. If you say 'no' then why do you suggest that format be
used for any date in preference for, e.g., the much clearer 'May 10th 2004' ?

-- Chris

Post a reply to this message

Ouch!

Jim

"Chris Cason" <new### [at] deletethispovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4076bcb5@news.povray.org...
>
> "Rafal 'Raf256' Maj" <spa### [at] raf256com> wrote
> > So between today and discussion "Pov 3.6 expiration again..." there was
a
> > new pov 3.6 beta? I thought they will announce it here, sory then, Im
going
> > to download it.
>
> No, we don't announce it here, we assume that users who consider
themselves
> sufficiently intelligent to use clearly-labelled beta software are also
> intelligent enough to find that a new version is available once the old
one
> expires, WITHOUT our having to hold their hand and tell them. Even if we
*do*
> miss the expiration date by a day. All it takes is a single look at the
beta
> web page to see if beta 3 has been posted. (The other beta users seem to
have
> managed this feat of mental agility quite neatly.)
>
> Beta users are made quite aware that we do *not* want reports from old
betas.
> The fact you are posting bug reports here about an expired version (when
the
> specific reason for the expiration is to prevent just such a thing), added
to
> your previous complaints about the expiration date system altogether, says
to
> me that you are not a suitable person to be testing our beta software.
>
> In future please refrain from using POV-Ray betas. Use the official
version
> if you want, but do *not* download or install anything from us labelled
'beta',
> and please cease to use any of our beta software that you have already
installed.
>
> thanks for your co-operation,
>
> -- Chris Cason
>
>

Post a reply to this message

> No it would not be a good idea to do so. DD-MM-YYYY format is practically
> useless on an international web site

	YYYY-MM-DD is the answer (that's ISO standard I guess).

	- NC

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Kress" <pov### [at] kressworkscom> wrote:
> Ouch!

yep, it may seem harsh, but frankly I'm tired of the complaints. He's the
only beta tester that I can recall who not only openly admits (some might
even say 'boasts') about (in his words) 'hacking' the betas to extend expiry,
but *then* goes on to complain about bugs in the expired version!!!

he is well aware (and has been told) that the purpose of the expiry is to
prevent this exact thing. yet he does it anyway.

while the team does appreciate the input of beta testers, this particular
case has just got me too annoyed to allow it to continue to the NEXT expiry!

-- Chris

Post a reply to this message

new### [at] deletethispovrayorg news:4076c63a@news.povray.org

> in the expired version!!!

This bug is stil in beta 3, see my new post.

-- 
http://www.raf256.com/3d/
Rafal Maj 'Raf256', home page - http://www.raf256.com/me/
Computer Graphics

Post a reply to this message