POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.beta-test : v3.7.1 beta 5-- light_group problem? Server Time
28 Mar 2024 19:09:19 EDT (-0400)
  v3.7.1 beta 5-- light_group problem? (Message 15 to 24 of 24)  
<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Initial 10 Messages
From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: v3.7.1 beta 5-- light_group problem?
Date: 4 May 2017 02:48:06
Message: <590acea6$1@news.povray.org>
On 3-5-2017 22:50, Stephen wrote:
> On 5/3/2017 7:47 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Am 03.05.2017 um 20:40 schrieb clipka:
>>
>>> Kenneth and Tomas' posts are clear evidence (nay, proof) that it is
>>> /not/ "expected behaviour" - or at least not universally so.
>>
>> (Sorry Tom, stole an "h" from you there...)
>>
> Now you have stolen an as.
> A tisk a tisk.
>

Oh well... once again I shall have to scrounge for some new ones.

-- 
Thomas


Post a reply to this message

From: Stephen
Subject: Re: v3.7.1 beta 5-- light_group problem?
Date: 4 May 2017 03:48:55
Message: <590adce7@news.povray.org>
On 5/4/2017 7:47 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 3-5-2017 22:50, Stephen wrote:
>> On 5/3/2017 7:47 PM, clipka wrote:
>>> Am 03.05.2017 um 20:40 schrieb clipka:
>>>
>>>> Kenneth and Tomas' posts are clear evidence (nay, proof) that it is
>>>> /not/ "expected behaviour" - or at least not universally so.
>>>
>>> (Sorry Tom, stole an "h" from you there...)
>>>
>> Now you have stolen an as.
>> A tisk a tisk.
>>
>
> Oh well... once again I shall have to scrounge for some new ones.
>

I am sure you will get round to it. :)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen


Post a reply to this message

From: Stephen
Subject: Re: v3.7.1 beta 5-- light_group problem?
Date: 4 May 2017 03:49:37
Message: <590add11$1@news.povray.org>
On 5/4/2017 7:44 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 4-5-2017 6:14, Kenneth wrote:
>> Here's a really naive thought: Would it be possible to add an on-off
>> switch to
>> the current light_group implementation, to either allow the 'global'
>> shadows
>> (as-is), or to turn them off (for objects not in that light_group?)
>>
>> My thinking is this: Since a light_group's LIGHT is already restricted
>> to only
>> the group's objects, could the shadow calculations from the light also be
>> restricted like that? If so, we could choose which behavior to use--
>> 'the best
>> of both worlds', so to speak. And it wouldn't break backward
>> compatibility.
>>
>
> My thoughts entirely.
>

That would be a plus.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen


Post a reply to this message

From: green
Subject: Re: v3.7.1 beta 5-- light_group problem?
Date: 4 May 2017 09:25:02
Message: <web.590b2a86cb5fff94540f0de50@news.povray.org>
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 30.04.2017 um 18:15 schrieb Alain:
>
> > This is the correct and expected behaviour and did not change since
> > light_group have been introduced.
>
> Kenneth and Tomas' posts are clear evidence (nay, proof) that it is
> /not/ "expected behaviour" - or at least not universally so.
>
i will pile-on and say i too was surprised and dismayed at this behavior.  the
workarounds generally require much extra work.  i had ascribed the obviously odd
behavior to logical necessities in coding... or some other blahblahblah.


Post a reply to this message

From: Alain
Subject: Re: v3.7.1 beta 5-- light_group problem?
Date: 4 May 2017 19:08:17
Message: <590bb461@news.povray.org>
Le 17-05-04 à 03:49, Stephen a écrit :
> On 5/4/2017 7:44 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 4-5-2017 6:14, Kenneth wrote:
>>> Here's a really naive thought: Would it be possible to add an on-off
>>> switch to
>>> the current light_group implementation, to either allow the 'global'
>>> shadows
>>> (as-is), or to turn them off (for objects not in that light_group?)
>>>
>>> My thinking is this: Since a light_group's LIGHT is already restricted
>>> to only
>>> the group's objects, could the shadow calculations from the light 
>>> also be
>>> restricted like that? If so, we could choose which behavior to use--
>>> 'the best
>>> of both worlds', so to speak. And it wouldn't break backward
>>> compatibility.
>>>
>>
>> My thoughts entirely.
>>
> 
> That would be a plus.
> 

Proposed key word : global_shadows on/off
Default is ON


Post a reply to this message

From: Kenneth
Subject: Re: v3.7.1 beta 5-- light_group problem?
Date: 5 May 2017 00:05:01
Message: <web.590bf8c4cb5fff94883fb31c0@news.povray.org>
Alain <kua### [at] videotronca> wrote:

>
> Proposed key word : global_shadows on/off
> Default is ON

Exactly! My thought too.


Post a reply to this message

From: green
Subject: Re: v3.7.1 beta 5-- light_group problem?
Date: 5 May 2017 09:05:00
Message: <web.590c77d0cb5fff94540f0de50@news.povray.org>
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Alain <kua### [at] videotronca> wrote:
>
> >
> > Proposed key word : global_shadows on/off
> > Default is ON
>
> Exactly! My thought too.

thinking more like
    light_group{ BOOLEAN tokens...
where a missing BOOLEAN would denote the default.


Post a reply to this message

From: Kenneth
Subject: Re: v3.7.1 beta 5-- light_group problem?
Date: 5 May 2017 15:00:00
Message: <web.590ccacbcb5fff94883fb31c0@news.povray.org>
"green" <rov### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

>
> thinking more like
>     light_group{ BOOLEAN tokens...
> where a missing BOOLEAN would denote the default.

An interesting idea; less keyboard typing to do.

However, there is already a 'global_lights' keyword for light_groups, so its
'mate' should be a similar phrase (in my opinion), which would seem logical, as
the two phrases are so closely related as to the meaning of their operations.

Of course, this is all hypothetical right now. Clipka and the other developers
are probably thinking, "What?! ANOTHER new feature to add??"  :-P


Post a reply to this message

From: clipka
Subject: Re: v3.7.1 beta 5-- light_group problem?
Date: 6 May 2017 05:09:07
Message: <590d92b3$1@news.povray.org>
Am 05.05.2017 um 20:57 schrieb Kenneth:

> Of course, this is all hypothetical right now. Clipka and the other developers
> are probably thinking, "What?! ANOTHER new feature to add??"  :-P

No, actually I'm thinking "Yup, I guess we should implement something
like this"; I haven't looked too much at the details though to decide on
any particular syntax.

What I can say for sure is that it won't be in 3.7.1, and that it will
/not/ be `light_group { BOOLEAN ... }`.


Post a reply to this message

From: Alain
Subject: Re: v3.7.1 beta 5-- light_group problem?
Date: 6 May 2017 11:50:36
Message: <590df0cc$1@news.povray.org>
Le 17-05-05 à 09:03, green a écrit :
> "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Alain <kua### [at] videotronca> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Proposed key word : global_shadows on/off
>>> Default is ON
>>
>> Exactly! My thought too.
> 
> thinking more like
>      light_group{ BOOLEAN tokens...
> where a missing BOOLEAN would denote the default.
> 
> 
> 
> 
Putting a naked boolean is a big no no.


Post a reply to this message

<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Initial 10 Messages

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.