 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27.07.2017 08:16, Stephen wrote:
> On 7/27/2017 12:19 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 27-7-2017 11:34, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> Has anyone collect Sven's code? I don't fancy going through the thread
>>> to piece it all together. And I've not been following it closely.
>>>
>>
>> This is the latest, with my amendments. See also the attached images I
>> used.
>>
>>
>>
> Thanks Thomas.
> The results were as expected. The shadows showing.
>
> But is this expected? It is the top of the balloon.
> [Drat! I can't put them inline.]
>
> Using Sven's original code. I imported it into Bishop3D correcting the
> errors one by one. Using the image maps you supplied. The second image
> is directly from Sven's code.
>
>
> What concerns me is:
> image_map { png "H:\My Documents\My Pictures\POV-Ray\Space - Launcher
> - Balloon - Type 001 - Moon Runnings - Balloon Texture.png" }
>
> Are those spaces and dashes part of the file name?
>
>
>
>
Yes, they are part of the file names. But they cause no error message,
as POV-Ray gives them straight to the Windows system, and Windows is
handling the file management.
Please use my balloon texture for the outside, and let us know, if you
still get bumps.
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von AVG auf Viren geprüft.
http://www.avg.com
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'space - launcher - balloon - type 001 - moon runnings - balloon texture.png' (882 KB)
Preview of image 'space - launcher - balloon - type 001 - moon runnings - balloon texture.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28.07.2017 02:45, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 27-7-2017 14:16, Stephen wrote:
>> On 7/27/2017 12:19 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> On 27-7-2017 11:34, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Has anyone collect Sven's code? I don't fancy going through the thread
>>>> to piece it all together. And I've not been following it closely.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is the latest, with my amendments. See also the attached images I
>>> used.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Thanks Thomas.
>> The results were as expected. The shadows showing.
>>
>> But is this expected? It is the top of the balloon.
>> [Drat! I can't put them inline.]
>
> Well, the bump_map is polar-oriented, so I expect the creases to show up
> on the sides too while the top is fairly smooth (according to the map).
>
>>
>> Using Sven's original code. I imported it into Bishop3D correcting the
>> errors one by one. Using the image maps you supplied. The second image
>> is directly from Sven's code.
>>
>>
>> What concerns me is:
>> image_map { png "H:\My Documents\My Pictures\POV-Ray\Space - Launcher
>> - Balloon - Type 001 - Moon Runnings - Balloon Texture.png" }
>>
>> Are those spaces and dashes part of the file name?
>>
>
> A question for Sven, but I think they are.
>
>
Yes, they are. No cause of any error, as Windows handles the file
management.
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von AVG auf Viren geprüft.
http://www.avg.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27.07.2017 05:14, clipka wrote:
> Am 27.07.2017 um 05:24 schrieb Sven Littkowski:
>
>>> At the moment, all seems to point at the pigment definition as the
>>> culprit, as that's the only relevant thing we've always changed. You
>>> should at least /try/ it with a plain pigment, to either confirm or
>>> refute this theory.
>>>
>>> If you can confirm it, we know that's what we have to examine further;
>>> in that case you'll probably want to post the image map at last, so tha
t
>>> we can see what might be so special about it.
>>>
>>> Otherwise we can be sure that it's a red herring, and that we have to
>>> dig someplace else.
>>>
>> Nope. Here's a one-color pigment. :-(
>
> Okay, now this leaves surprisingly few possible explanations. I can only
> come up with the following:
>
> - You might be using a rare and buggy version of POV-Ray.
>
> To check this, I recommend you post the exact POV-Ray version number
> (and let us know which operating system you're using).
>
> - You might be using a different scene file and/or bump map image file
> than those you posted.
>
> - There might be a relevant line break introduced in your post of the
> scene file that we've been overlooking.
>
> To check these two, I recommend you temporarily rename your scene and
> auxiliary files (image file and bump map), then try to re-create the
> scene from your own postings and render it. You'll get parse errors,
> make sure to fix only those actually reported.
>
> - You might be using low-quality settings (`+q7` or lower).
>
> To check this, I recommend you post the message output of the render,
> and/or run the render with `+giFOO.INI` and post the generated FOO.INI he
re.
>
Clipka, you shot the bird!
Okay, everyone: I herewith declare myself as a big fool!
I use POV-Ray for soooo many years, since around 1990 or so, and can you
believe it I just oversaw all the time of posting here, that I used:
QUALITY = 6
And did not even think about checking for the Q setting!!!!!
SHAME ON ME! I wasted so much of your all valuable time! But at least,
one more time the POV-Ray community has proven its great pioneer-alike
spirit! I owe you all my big thanks!
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von AVG auf Viren geprüft.
http://www.avg.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27.07.2017 05:14, clipka wrote:
> Am 27.07.2017 um 05:24 schrieb Sven Littkowski:
>
>>> At the moment, all seems to point at the pigment definition as the
>>> culprit, as that's the only relevant thing we've always changed. You
>>> should at least /try/ it with a plain pigment, to either confirm or
>>> refute this theory.
>>>
>>> If you can confirm it, we know that's what we have to examine further;
>>> in that case you'll probably want to post the image map at last, so tha
t
>>> we can see what might be so special about it.
>>>
>>> Otherwise we can be sure that it's a red herring, and that we have to
>>> dig someplace else.
>>>
>> Nope. Here's a one-color pigment. :-(
>
> Okay, now this leaves surprisingly few possible explanations. I can only
> come up with the following:
>
> - You might be using a rare and buggy version of POV-Ray.
>
> To check this, I recommend you post the exact POV-Ray version number
> (and let us know which operating system you're using).
>
> - You might be using a different scene file and/or bump map image file
> than those you posted.
>
> - There might be a relevant line break introduced in your post of the
> scene file that we've been overlooking.
>
> To check these two, I recommend you temporarily rename your scene and
> auxiliary files (image file and bump map), then try to re-create the
> scene from your own postings and render it. You'll get parse errors,
> make sure to fix only those actually reported.
>
> - You might be using low-quality settings (`+q7` or lower).
>
> To check this, I recommend you post the message output of the render,
> and/or run the render with `+giFOO.INI` and post the generated FOO.INI he
re.
>
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von AVG auf Viren geprüft.
http://www.avg.com
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'space - launcher - balloon - type 001 - moon runnings.png' (210 KB)
Preview of image 'space - launcher - balloon - type 001 - moon runnings.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Clipka, you shot the bird!
Okay, everyone: I herewith declare myself as a big fool!
I use POV-Ray for soooo many years, since around 1990 or so, and can you
believe it I just oversaw all the time of posting here, that I used:
QUALITY = 6
And did not even think about checking for the Q setting!!!!!
SHAME ON ME! I wasted so much of your all valuable time! But at least,
one more time the POV-Ray community has proven its great pioneer-alike
spirit! I owe you all my big thanks!
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von AVG auf Viren geprüft.
http://www.avg.com
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'space - launcher - balloon - type 001 - moon runnings.png' (210 KB)
Preview of image 'space - launcher - balloon - type 001 - moon runnings.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sven Littkowski <I### [at] SvenLittkowski name> wrote:
>
> Okay, everyone: I herewith declare myself as a big fool!
> I use POV-Ray for soooo many years, since around 1990 or so, and can you
> believe it I just oversaw all the time of posting here, that I used:
> QUALITY = 6
> And did not even think about checking for the Q setting!!!!!
> SHAME ON ME! I wasted so much of your all valuable time! But at least,
> one more time the POV-Ray community has proven its great pioneer-alike
> spirit! I owe you all my big thanks!
That explains it.
You have been raytracing too long when... quality settings are forgotten!
LOL
I am glad that problem is solved, regardless of why!
:)
I was just about to email you back to say it looks okay again.
Although before I rendered the balloon, seeing that very dark texture image_map
for it, I was thinking it must be too dark to show the normal_map. Yet it isn't,
mine looks the same as your quality change render now.
Bob
P.S. Still don't know if you want that parachute piece hovering over the
balloon (makes the little shadow on left top edge).
I keep removing it by using:
#declare LowerBalloonShape = difference
{
sphere { < 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 > MyRadius }
cylinder {
< 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 > < 0.0, /*175.001*/MyRadius+0.001, 0.0 >
MyRadius+0.001 }
scale < 1.0, 1.5, 1.0 >
}
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 17-07-28 à 19:17, Sven Littkowski a écrit :
> On 27.07.2017 08:16, Stephen wrote:
>> On 7/27/2017 12:19 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> On 27-7-2017 11:34, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Has anyone collect Sven's code? I don't fancy going through the thread
>>>> to piece it all together. And I've not been following it closely.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is the latest, with my amendments. See also the attached images I
>>> used.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Thanks Thomas.
>> The results were as expected. The shadows showing.
>>
>> But is this expected? It is the top of the balloon.
>> [Drat! I can't put them inline.]
>>
>> Using Sven's original code. I imported it into Bishop3D correcting the
>> errors one by one. Using the image maps you supplied. The second image
>> is directly from Sven's code.
>>
>>
>> What concerns me is:
>> image_map { png "H:\My Documents\My Pictures\POV-Ray\Space - Launcher
>> - Balloon - Type 001 - Moon Runnings - Balloon Texture.png" }
>>
>> Are those spaces and dashes part of the file name?
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Yes, they are part of the file names. But they cause no error message,
> as POV-Ray gives them straight to the Windows system, and Windows is
> handling the file management.
>
> Please use my balloon texture for the outside, and let us know, if you
> still get bumps.
>
>
> ---
> Diese E-Mail wurde von AVG auf Viren geprüft.
> http://www.avg.com
>
Well, that image is all pure black... So, unless it have reflection of
high specularity, the bumps will have a practically impossible task
showing up.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28.07.2017 21:14, omniverse wrote:
> Sven Littkowski <I### [at] SvenLittkowskiname> wrote:
>>
>> Okay, everyone: I herewith declare myself as a big fool!
>> I use POV-Ray for soooo many years, since around 1990 or so, and can you
>> believe it I just oversaw all the time of posting here, that I used:
>> QUALITY = 6
>> And did not even think about checking for the Q setting!!!!!
>> SHAME ON ME! I wasted so much of your all valuable time! But at least,
>> one more time the POV-Ray community has proven its great pioneer-alike
>> spirit! I owe you all my big thanks!
>
> That explains it.
> You have been raytracing too long when... quality settings are forgotten!
> LOL
> I am glad that problem is solved, regardless of why!
> :)
>
> I was just about to email you back to say it looks okay again.
> Although before I rendered the balloon, seeing that very dark texture image_map
> for it, I was thinking it must be too dark to show the normal_map. Yet it isn't,
> mine looks the same as your quality change render now.
>
> Bob
>
> P.S. Still don't know if you want that parachute piece hovering over the
> balloon (makes the little shadow on left top edge).
> I keep removing it by using:
>
> #declare LowerBalloonShape = difference
> {
> sphere { < 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 > MyRadius }
> cylinder {
> < 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 > < 0.0, /*175.001*/MyRadius+0.001, 0.0 >
> MyRadius+0.001 }
> scale < 1.0, 1.5, 1.0 >
> }
>
>
Really, I am sooo ashamed. :-D
Thanks for reminding me about that parachute. I didn't see it yet, but I
will give now more distance with the camera to see it.
YES - that parachute gotta go! I use now your suggested code that I
should have added long time ago. I simply forgot that area, when i a
longer time ago changed the diameter from 175 to 200.
Starting to think now about the best outside surface attributes
(finishes). Don't know, how the surface attributes of a balloon are, I
admit. it is not one of those ultra-thin surfaces, because of the huge
size of the balloon. The surface material would be more similar to that
of a zeppelin, I think, as more stability is required. After all, we
speak about a total diameter of 400 meters! :-)
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von AVG auf Viren geprüft.
http://www.avg.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29-7-2017 1:17, Sven Littkowski wrote:
> Please use my balloon texture for the outside, and let us know, if you
> still get bumps.
>
Has /this/ image been your balloon texture all along? Then, I am /not/
surprised that you do not see any bumps: the image is completely black! ;-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29.07.2017 03:02, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 29-7-2017 1:17, Sven Littkowski wrote:
>> Please use my balloon texture for the outside, and let us know, if you
>> still get bumps.
>>
> Has /this/ image been your balloon texture all along? Then, I am /not/
> surprised that you do not see any bumps: the image is completely black! ;
-)
>
>
> Thomas
Hi, the problem was been solved already, but big thanks anyhow.
We found what was wrong, in fact it was a seldomly stupid error: I
forgot to change the QUALITY from 6 to a better level (using 10 now). :-)
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von AVG auf Viren geprüft.
http://www.avg.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
