On 01/06/2015 05:42 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 28.08.2014 um 19:41 schrieb James Holsenback:
>> On 08/20/2014 09:40 AM, clipka wrote:
>>> Am 20.08.2014 15:26, schrieb James Holsenback:
>>>
>>>> OTO_Get_Mask
>>>> <-8.00000000000000000000,-5.00000000000000000000,0.0000000000000000
>>>> 0000> Result:0.99999997764825820923
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm ... OK I think this shows problem the above is output from inside
>>>> the OTO_Get_Mask function ... I now see why reversing the logic (and my
>>>> "on a lark" test) in corner test works
>>>
>>> Bingo!
>>>
>>> Okay, you obviously have already figured a way around this problem by
>>> way of modifying OTOc.inc, and I think I now have enough information to
>>> go hunting for the root cause in the codebase.
>>>
>>> I might come back to you for testing of some code modifications, if
>>> that's ok for you.
>>>
>>
>> curious if you've had any time to follow up
>
> Now that I've returned from outer space, I have at last; can you please
> try the following patch:
>
> At the beginning of source/base/colour.h, around line 95, replace the
> following lines:
>
> const float kRedIntensity   = 0.297;
> const float kGreenIntensity = 0.589;
> const float kBlueIntensity  = 0.114;
>
> with this:
>
> const PreciseColourChannel kRedIntensity   = 0.297;
> const PreciseColourChannel kGreenIntensity = 0.589;
> const PreciseColourChannel kBlueIntensity  = 0.114;
>
> I /think/ it should fix the issue. The culprit would then have been
> change 0ea2da4.

I'm unable to get a clean build after beta6 and I don't have time to 
troubleshoot. Wooo hoo I'm getting my 1st day off (this coming sunday) 
since the 1st of the year, and I'm not inclined to spend that time 
trying to unravel. I DID however notice you made a change on the Wiki to 
the "Strings" documentation. What time frame are you looking at for a 
release? There have been other doc changes since last release and I'd 
like to pick up the changes and post the new doc sets if there aren't 
any more changes.

Post a reply to this message

Am 23.01.2015 um 19:25 schrieb James Holsenback:

> I'm unable to get a clean build after beta6 and I don't have time to
> troubleshoot.

beta6? Wait, that's UberPOV, isn't it?

It was my understanding that we were talking about fixing POV-Ray proper 
for now. Once we have that sorted out, it can be merged into UberPOV.

> Wooo hoo I'm getting my 1st day off (this coming sunday)
> since the 1st of the year, and I'm not inclined to spend that time
> trying to unravel.

Can't blame you :D

> I DID however notice you made a change on the Wiki to
> the "Strings" documentation. What time frame are you looking at for a
> release? There have been other doc changes since last release and I'd
> like to pick up the changes and post the new doc sets if there aren't
> any more changes.

As for a full-fledged official release, with installer and all, I guess 
you'll have to ask Chris about that one. He had intended to do a build 
earlier this month, but it seems like real life interfered.

I've just released a new semi-official development build (see 
povray.beta-test), but that's just a drop-in replacement for the binary, 
without any docs.

Post a reply to this message

On 01/14/2015 03:26 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 13-1-2015 20:02, James Holsenback wrote:
>> Well my job (10hrs a day 7 days a week) is a black hole ...
>
> No kidding? Slavery has been prohibited as far as I know... :-\
>

Nope not kidding ... was let go from my contract this past Wednesday 
when I was asked to go to 12hrs a day and said that I just couldn't 
physically do it.

Post a reply to this message

Am 01.02.2015 um 02:37 schrieb James Holsenback:
> On 01/14/2015 03:26 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 13-1-2015 20:02, James Holsenback wrote:
>>> Well my job (10hrs a day 7 days a week) is a black hole ...
>>
>> No kidding? Slavery has been prohibited as far as I know... :-\
>>
>
> Nope not kidding ... was let go from my contract this past Wednesday
> when I was asked to go to 12hrs a day and said that I just couldn't
> physically do it.

Ouch. That's no fun either way.

Thinking that in Germany it is a criminal offense to employ people for 
more than 50 hours a week on average, or more than 10 hours on any 
day... then again, contract work might be a legal way around that here, too.


Just wondering though whether the company will be better off with one of 
their contractors now working 0 hours rather than 10...

Post a reply to this message

On 01/31/2015 09:59 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 01.02.2015 um 02:37 schrieb James Holsenback:
>> On 01/14/2015 03:26 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> On 13-1-2015 20:02, James Holsenback wrote:
>>>> Well my job (10hrs a day 7 days a week) is a black hole ...
>>>
>>> No kidding? Slavery has been prohibited as far as I know... :-\
>>>
>>
>> Nope not kidding ... was let go from my contract this past Wednesday
>> when I was asked to go to 12hrs a day and said that I just couldn't
>> physically do it.
>
> Ouch. That's no fun either way.
>
> Thinking that in Germany it is a criminal offense to employ people for
> more than 50 hours a week on average, or more than 10 hours on any
> day... then again, contract work might be a legal way around that here,
> too.

In some states in US it's also illegal, but where I'm at (Kentucky) they 
rank at the bottom for labor laws

>
>
> Just wondering though whether the company will be better off with one of
> their contractors now working 0 hours rather than 10...
>

Yeah ... I don't see the logic either, people are dropping like flies 
and they are having major staffing problems. Just got a text from a 
friend still there and they're running with a short crew tonight, she's 
an older person like myself and dead run off her feet. I'm hoping to win 
the lottery tonight so I can rescue her from that hell-hole

Post a reply to this message

Am 01.02.2015 um 05:20 schrieb James Holsenback:

>> Just wondering though whether the company will be better off with one of
>> their contractors now working 0 hours rather than 10...
>>
>
> Yeah ... I don't see the logic either, people are dropping like flies
> and they are having major staffing problems. Just got a text from a
> friend still there and they're running with a short crew tonight, she's
> an older person like myself and dead run off her feet. I'm hoping to win
> the lottery tonight so I can rescue her from that hell-hole

Sounds like a plan. Don't forget to donate a few bucks to the cause of 
POV-Ray though ;)

Post a reply to this message

On 01/06/2015 05:42 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 28.08.2014 um 19:41 schrieb James Holsenback:
>> On 08/20/2014 09:40 AM, clipka wrote:
>>> Am 20.08.2014 15:26, schrieb James Holsenback:
>>>
>>>> OTO_Get_Mask
>>>> <-8.00000000000000000000,-5.00000000000000000000,0.0000000000000000
>>>> 0000> Result:0.99999997764825820923
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm ... OK I think this shows problem the above is output from inside
>>>> the OTO_Get_Mask function ... I now see why reversing the logic (and my
>>>> "on a lark" test) in corner test works
>>>
>>> Bingo!
>>>
>>> Okay, you obviously have already figured a way around this problem by
>>> way of modifying OTOc.inc, and I think I now have enough information to
>>> go hunting for the root cause in the codebase.
>>>
>>> I might come back to you for testing of some code modifications, if
>>> that's ok for you.
>>>
>>
>> curious if you've had any time to follow up
>
> Now that I've returned from outer space, I have at last; can you please
> try the following patch:
>
> At the beginning of source/base/colour.h, around line 95, replace the
> following lines:
>
> const float kRedIntensity   = 0.297;
> const float kGreenIntensity = 0.589;
> const float kBlueIntensity  = 0.114;
>
> with this:
>
> const PreciseColourChannel kRedIntensity   = 0.297;
> const PreciseColourChannel kGreenIntensity = 0.589;
> const PreciseColourChannel kBlueIntensity  = 0.114;
>
> I /think/ it should fix the issue. The culprit would then have been
> change 0ea2da4.

your latest commit still had the OTOc problem that started this thread 
so I was able to test the above ... looks like you nailed that one too 
... danke

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'before.png' (2242 KB) Download 'after.png' (2593 KB)

Preview of image 'before.png'

Preview of image 'after.png'

Hi(gh)!

On 01.02.2015 03:59, clipka wrote:

> Thinking that in Germany it is a criminal offense to employ people for
> more than 50 hours a week on average, or more than 10 hours on any
> day... then again, contract work might be a legal way around that here,
> too.

If I remember correctly, the limit is 48 hours/week!

See you in Khyberspace!

Yadgar

Now playing: The Tell-Tale Heart (The Alan Parsons Project)

Post a reply to this message

> Hi(gh)!
>
> On 01.02.2015 03:59, clipka wrote:
>
>> Thinking that in Germany it is a criminal offense to employ people for
>> more than 50 hours a week on average, or more than 10 hours on any
>> day... then again, contract work might be a legal way around that here,
>> too.
>
> If I remember correctly, the limit is 48 hours/week!

Whoops, you're right.

Post a reply to this message

On 2-2-2015 14:25, clipka wrote:

>> Hi(gh)!
>>
>> On 01.02.2015 03:59, clipka wrote:
>>
>>> Thinking that in Germany it is a criminal offense to employ people for
>>> more than 50 hours a week on average, or more than 10 hours on any
>>> day... then again, contract work might be a legal way around that here,
>>> too.
>>
>> If I remember correctly, the limit is 48 hours/week!
>
> Whoops, you're right.
>
In NL, the official (cumulative) maxima are 12 hours/day and 60 
hours/week. However, you are not allowed to work to the maximum hours 
for a continuous period. Over longer periods averages of 55 hours/week 
(4 weeks period) or 48 hours/week (16 weeks period) apply. The average 
for most jobs probably is 36/40 hours/week. If these rules apply for 
independent workers depends on the type of work provided.


-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message