 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
consider the following;
//---------------------------------------------------------------------
#version 3.7; //
camera
{ perspective
location -30*z //
look_at z //
right x* image_width/ image_height //
angle 55 //
}
light_source { <100, 100, -100> rgb <1, 1, 1> } //
#declare leength= 20; //
#declare weedth= 20; //
#declare bagel=box
{ <-leength/2, -weedth/2, -.005*leength>,
<leength/2, weedth/2, .005*leength>
pigment{ // -----------------------------------------------
pavement number_of_sides 3 number_of_tiles 4 pattern 3
exterior 0 interior 0 form 0
color_map{
[ 0.00 color rgb<0.55, 0.25, 0.25> ]
[ 0.60 color rgb<0.25, 0.25, 0.25> ]
[ 0.90 color rgb<0.00, 0.00, 0.00> ]
[ 1.00 color rgb 1 ]
} //
scale 01.425 //
rotate x*90 //
} // ------------------------------------------------------
}; //
object{ bagel } //
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'bagels.jpg' (174 KB)
Preview of image 'bagels.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 27.03.2017 um 16:52 schrieb green:
> consider the following;
Tracking this on GitHub as issue #260 ("Pavement pattern broken")
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 27.03.2017 um 18:00 schrieb clipka:
> Am 27.03.2017 um 16:52 schrieb green:
>> consider the following;
>
> Tracking this on GitHub as issue #260 ("Pavement pattern broken")
Will be fixed in next beta.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"green" <rov### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> consider the following;
>
>
> //---------------------------------------------------------------------
> #version 3.7; //
[snip]
This is off-topic, but I thought that to run a 3.7.1 alpha or beta version
correctly (i.e., so that it does not invoke its 'backwards compatibility' with a
previous version's features), the #version statement should be #version 3.71
and not just 3.7 Am I right or wrong about that? I always assumed it to be
so.
(By the way, the incorrect tiling pattern shows up either way.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 28.03.2017 um 00:45 schrieb Kenneth:
>> //---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> #version 3.7; //
> [snip]
>
> This is off-topic, but I thought that to run a 3.7.1 alpha or beta version
> correctly (i.e., so that it does not invoke its 'backwards compatibility' with a
> previous version's features), the #version statement should be #version 3.71
> and not just 3.7 Am I right or wrong about that? I always assumed it to be
> so.
You are perfectly right in that `#version 3.7` (which is shorthand for
`#version 3.70`, which in turn is interpreted as "this scene was
designed for version 3.7.0") will cause some 3.7.1-specific behaviour to
be disabled in order to maintain compatibility with the behaviour of 3.7.0.
However, most added features work perfectly fine even when the scene
says `#version 3.70`. (Which I concede isn't ideal, because it makes it
possible for people to write scenes that use 3.7.1 features but claim to
be "designed for version 3.7.0", leading to confusion if someone ever
tries to actually render such a scene with 3.7.0.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/28/2017 9:35 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 28.03.2017 um 00:45 schrieb Kenneth:
>>> //---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> #version 3.7; //
>> [snip]
>>
>> This is off-topic, but I thought that to run a 3.7.1 alpha or beta version
>> correctly (i.e., so that it does not invoke its 'backwards compatibility' with a
>> previous version's features), the #version statement should be #version 3.71
>> and not just 3.7 Am I right or wrong about that? I always assumed it to be
>> so.
>
> You are perfectly right in that `#version 3.7` (which is shorthand for
> `#version 3.70`, which in turn is interpreted as "this scene was
> designed for version 3.7.0") will cause some 3.7.1-specific behaviour to
> be disabled in order to maintain compatibility with the behaviour of 3.7.0.
>
> However, most added features work perfectly fine even when the scene
> says `#version 3.70`. (Which I concede isn't ideal, because it makes it
> possible for people to write scenes that use 3.7.1 features but claim to
> be "designed for version 3.7.0", leading to confusion if someone ever
> tries to actually render such a scene with 3.7.0.)
>
The lack of a second dot in `#version 3.70` is kind of confusing.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/28/2017 11:09 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> The lack of a second dot in `#version 3.70` is kind of confusing.
>
>
> Mike
Whoever decided to use a float to store the version number had the wrong
idea, IMO.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/29/2017 05:17 AM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> Whoever decided to use a float to store the version number had the wrong
> idea, IMO.
That works very well for TeX.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 29.03.2017 um 05:17 schrieb Mike Horvath:
> On 3/28/2017 11:09 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
>> The lack of a second dot in `#version 3.70` is kind of confusing.
>
> Whoever decided to use a float to store the version number had the wrong
> idea, IMO.
I hear you.
It does have its benefits though: It allows for constructs like
#declare temp_version = version;
#version 3.5;
...
#version temp_version;
or
#if (version >= 3.71)
...
#end
without having to add special language constructs to the parser for
assigning and comparing version numbers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
