 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/08/2018 07:30, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> Not Jesus the Mexican welder I met in NM? And yes his wife's name was
>> Mary and he had a sunscreen on his car that said; "Mary and Jesus".
>>
>
> Till the end of my days, I shall be amazed by the world I live in.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-42009219
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: Unexpected double_illuminate tradeoffs
Date: 5 Aug 2018 07:06:16
Message: <5b66da28@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5-8-2018 9:31, Stephen wrote:
> On 05/08/2018 07:30, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> Not Jesus the Mexican welder I met in NM? And yes his wife's name was
>>> Mary and he had a sunscreen on his car that said; "Mary and Jesus".
>>>
>>
>> Till the end of my days, I shall be amazed by the world I live in.
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-42009219
>
>
Yes... One of those things...
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jörg "Yadgar" Bleimann
Subject: Re: Unexpected double_illuminate tradeoffs
Date: 8 Aug 2018 06:22:45
Message: <5b6ac475$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi(gh)!
On 03.08.2018 16:10, Bald Eagle wrote:
> I'd start off with a ton, or tonne, depending, and then subdivide from there.
> Not being a certified expert in weights and measures, I'm not sure which ton
> would be best suited for the purpose - there's long tons, short tons, metric
> tons, shit tons, Greek tons, Avoirdupois....
In Khyberspace, we'll have the ser-e kabuli (7 kgs), the ser-e mazari
(14 kgs), the kharwar (560 kgs, or 80 ser-e kabuli), the jerib (2000
kgs)!
See you there!
Yadgar
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> From the tests, it's clear that the
> object's edge normals are not picking up any of the SKY color (YELLOW)...
Ignore that silly comment; my bad.
The only way that the 'edge' triangles/normals could possibly pick up the SKY
color is if those triangles *reflected* the sky. But there's no 'reflection' in
the height_field's texture statement. I got a bit confused in my thinking...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/08/2018 18:16, Kenneth wrote:
> "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> From the tests, it's clear that the
>> object's edge normals are not picking up any of the SKY color (YELLOW)...
>
> Ignore that silly comment; my bad.
>
> The only way that the 'edge' triangles/normals could possibly pick up the SKY
> color is if those triangles *reflected* the sky. But there's no 'reflection' in
> the height_field's texture statement. I got a bit confused in my thinking...
>
Just thinking out loud. Is there a default reflection value?
Is there a list of default values?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 18-08-08 à 14:34, Stephen a écrit :
> On 08/08/2018 18:16, Kenneth wrote:
>> "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>> From the tests, it's clear that the
>>> object's edge normals are not picking up any of the SKY color
>>> (YELLOW)...
>>
>> Ignore that silly comment; my bad.
>>
>> The only way that the 'edge' triangles/normals could possibly pick up
>> the SKY
>> color is if those triangles *reflected* the sky. But there's no
>> 'reflection' in
>> the height_field's texture statement. I got a bit confused in my
>> thinking...
>>
>
> Just thinking out loud. Is there a default reflection value?
> Is there a list of default values?
>
reflection default to zero.
If you look in the documentation, you'll see that many features do have
defaults, but you need to search around as there is no all encompassing
defaults list that I remember of. There is a list, but it's not complete.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/08/2018 22:04, Alain wrote:
>> Just thinking out loud. Is there a default reflection value?
>> Is there a list of default values?
>>
>
> reflection default to zero.
>
Thanks.
> If you look in the documentation, you'll see that many features do have
> defaults, but you need to search around as there is no all encompassing
> defaults list that I remember of. There is a list, but it's not complete.
It was just curiosity.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2018-08-04 07:33 PM (-4), Cousin Ricky wrote:
>
> TL;DR: I'm now working on very low detail mesh trees.
After a memory test, my priority has switched from revamping the trees
to implementing units.
First of all, I can't seem to find any memory usage statistics in the
POV-Ray 3.7 messages, so I did the test in 3.6. These are the results
for my original model, which uses a sphere for broadleaf trees and a
simple CSG intersection for conifers:
Smallest Alloc: 9 bytes
Largest Alloc: 492040 bytes
Peak memory used: 73732329 bytes
Total Scene Processing Times
Parse Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 55 seconds (55 seconds)
Photon Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 0 seconds (0 seconds)
Render Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 8 seconds (8 seconds)
Total Time: 0 hours 1 minutes 3 seconds (63 seconds)
These are the results of the mesh test:
Smallest Alloc: 9 bytes
Largest Alloc: 492040 bytes
Peak memory used: 85738823 bytes
Total Scene Processing Times
Parse Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 54 seconds (54 seconds)
Photon Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 0 seconds (0 seconds)
Render Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 9 seconds (9 seconds)
Total Time: 0 hours 1 minutes 3 seconds (63 seconds)
It appears that for low-detail models, there is near parity, at least in
POV-Ray 3.6, with the original system having a slight edge. A third
test with more complex CSG used a lot more memory, confirming that for
increased detail, meshes are definitely the way to go. But as long as
I'm not saving memory in the short term, the tree project doesn't seem
urgent.
Meanwhile, my patio is not wheelchair accessible. (What patio? Oh, I
forgot, in rig #4, I added an outdoor mode with a finite checkered
plane. Gotta have that checkered plane.) Of course, this is entirely
academic in a virtual universe, but if practical necessity were the only
factor, I wouldn't be worrying about hills and trees.
From the beginning of this 4th rig, I incorporated unit conversion
constants, because having a hardwired unit had already been a problem.
However, I haven't yet gotten around to integrating scaling factors into
the rig itself. In this state, the unit conversion constants are mostly
useless. This deficiency has reared its head in some of my Object
Collection projects, even though the rig itself is not part of the
uploaded scenes. When I added unit conversions to lrchairs (Leroy is
also an American, and his chair was sized accordingly), I had to fudge
the scaling in my test suite; and I had to do an unreasonable amount of
math to set the camera for the gem settings I posted last year. This is
work a prefab render rig should relieve me of.
I think I should best retrofit my existing code to incorporate
user-chosen units before embarking on a major project entailing
demolition and reconstruction of brick walls, or growing a new forest,
for that matter. As I see it right now, the horticulture can wait.
When the time comes, I am leaning strongly toward an increased triangle
count, without double illumination or interior texture. It turns out
that the current triangle count (95) leaves a disturbingly jagged
silhouette in the forest context, so I'd be going in that direction anyway.
Note: the hills in the attached image are just a textured height field.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'non-accessible.jpg' (103 KB)
Preview of image 'non-accessible.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2018-08-02 04:50 PM (-4), Bald Eagle wrote:
> Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>
>> [1] I did not choose my country of birth, but if I ever release the
>> source code, meters will be an option.
>
> Miles, baby. Miles.
Bad news for Americans (or any Brits pining for the goode olde days),
but I went ahead and converted the hills scale to meters. Hey, I'm just
an American trying to keep up with the rest of the world. To keep
things simple, the change is irreversible, #SryNotSry. Since I have not
released the code to the public, the only existing legacy scenes are my
own, and I have already updated them.
Miles Davis is grandfathered, it goes without saying.
This rigidity of units does not apply to any shapes I might drop into
the scene. Measuring a gemstone in meters would be rather cumbersome.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2018-08-12 05:48 PM (-4), Cousin Ricky wrote:
> Meanwhile, my patio is not wheelchair accessible. (What patio? Oh, I
> forgot, in rig #4, I added an outdoor mode with a finite checkered
> plane. Gotta have that checkered plane.)
Well, what do you know? I found a couple of scenes from rig #3 that
have a patio. Looks like I wanted that open air non-moiré checkered
plane earlier than I thought.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'egg_au_yolk.jpg' (61 KB)
Download 'mops-tree_trunk.jpg' (29 KB)
Preview of image 'egg_au_yolk.jpg'
Preview of image 'mops-tree_trunk.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
