Hi,

I really can't understand the reason for making the new POV-Ray 3.1
such incomptaible with earlier versions. I'm talking again about the
glass textures. All old scenes written for POV-Ray 3.0x, which contain
one or more textures from the file "glass.inc" will be rendered
incorrect in future. Halos won't be rendered at all.

Why can't that be fixed with the "#version" directive? Do I really
have to hold 2 versions (difference in version number 0.8) of POV-Ray
on my harddisk? How many versions of POV-Ray do I have to expect in
future on my harddisk?

Even software from Microsoft can manage data from versions which are
older than 4 or 5 years...

Bye,
Friedemann

P.S.: Excuse me for my bad English. I had to say a lot more if I found
the words ;-)


Friedemann Schmidt
Fri### [at] Stonescom
Raytracing-Gallery: http://www.rz.fhtw-berlin.de/~s0049669

Post a reply to this message

In article <35c87daf.3016033@news.povray.org>, Fri### [at] stonescom says...
>

>Why can't that be fixed with the "#version" directive? Do I really
>have to hold 2 versions (difference in version number 0.8) of POV-Ray
>on my harddisk? How many versions of POV-Ray do I have to expect in
>future on my harddisk?
>
>Even software from Microsoft can manage data from versions which are
>older than 4 or 5 years...
>
>Bye,
>Friedemann
>

Well, you have been clearly warned in 3.02 that it could change in the future.
They knew there was problems with the halo implementation.  It's rather
kind of them to have told us about that !  Does Micro$oft do that ?

Adding a #version feature for halos will overweight the software and confuse
users.  Converting from halos to media is quite easy.

I understand your point, but do you often re-work on older scenes ?

A compressed copy of Pov 3.02 takes 2 or 3 diskettes, so keep one aside !

(I personally kept for the record almost any version I had; older is
POV 1.0 BETA !!)

Cheers,
Fabien.

Post a reply to this message

Hi Fabien,

>Well, you have been clearly warned in 3.02 that it could change in the future.
>They knew there was problems with the halo implementation.  It's rather
>kind of them to have told us about that !  Does Micro$oft do that ?
>
>Adding a #version feature for halos will overweight the software and confuse
>users.  Converting from halos to media is quite easy.

Yes, you're absolutely right with halos, but what's the matter with
the glass textures???

>I understand your point, but do you often re-work on older scenes ?

From time to time I have to rerender older scenes. I don't want to
rework them, that's the point - but with scenes containing glasses, I
have to do it.

>A compressed copy of Pov 3.02 takes 2 or 3 diskettes, so keep one aside !
>
>(I personally kept for the record almost any version I had; older is
>POV 1.0 BETA !!)

I don't share your opinion in keeping all older POV-Ray versions.
Especially if the step from one version to another is < 0.1.

Bye,
Friedemann


Friedemann Schmidt
Fri### [at] Stonescom
Raytracing-Gallery: http://www.rz.fhtw-berlin.de/~s0049669/

Post a reply to this message

>Every time I run 3.0, there is a message saying certain features
>are "experimental" and "subject to change".  That means if one chooses
>to use those features, one is prepared to lose compatibility.

>Don't look at it as halos were taken away -- look at it as they were
>a gift while they lasted, to be replaced by something even better.

Yes, that's right. But again: what's about the glass textures?   

Well, I didn't want to criticize the new version too much... it's
again a very very well done work with its new possibilities! For me,
POV-Ray is still the most impressive software I've ever used. But I
would be very very glad to see a new modifier "material" in future
versions, so that one can declare the texture and interior of an
object again to one identifier like

  #declare M_Glass1 = material {
    texture {
      pigment { color rgbf <1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 0.7> }
      finish {
        specular 1
        roughness 0.001
        ambient 0
        diffuse 0
        reflection 0.1
      }   
    }
    interior {
      ior 1.5
    }
  }

That's the only thing I miss by now ;-)

Bye,
Friedemann




Friedemann Schmidt
Fri### [at] Stonescom
Raytracing-Gallery: http://www.rz.fhtw-berlin.de/~s0049669/

Post a reply to this message

Friedemann Schmidt wrote:

> Yes, that's right. But again: what's about the glass textures?

snip

> That's the only thing I miss by now ;-)
>
> Bye,
> Friedemann

    I have something close to 100 glass textures that were developed
by me and contain what I think are some pretty unique designs. Alas
they are now obsolete and have been reduced by the changes into
transparent pigment declarations.
    I have been cursing under my breath, and argued a little over on
c.g.r.r. about the injustice, but you know what?
    I'm getting over it. No one ever said it was an easy program to use.
Another thing to point out is that we as users get used to doing a thing
in a certain way and are resistant to change. If you were to try to back
up and start modeling with POV-Ray 1.0 you would be hairless in a week.
    The programers on the other hand are attempting, through research and
advances in programing software, to bring to us the user a better software
package. So go ahead and grumble, then get over it and move on. There are
way to many new features to learn in this revision change alone that there just
isn't time to complain (too much anyway).

My unsolicited $100 bucks worth (inflation).

K.Tyler

Post a reply to this message

Friedemann Schmidt wrote:
> (I wrote) : 
> >Don't look at it as halos were taken away -- look at it as they were
> >a gift while they lasted, to be replaced by something even better.
> 
> Yes, that's right. But again:

Sorry about that -- due to a time lag problem I didn't see the initial
reply to your post from Fabien (and your reply).  When I did see it,
I canceled mine, which was basically the same thing.

------------------
> I would be very very glad to see a new modifier "material" in future
> versions, so that one can declare the texture and interior of an
> object again to one identifier

I agree.

--------------------
> Raytracing-Gallery: http://www.rz.fhtw-berlin.de/~s0049669/

This is one of the best POV galleries I've seen on the net....
I really like your touch for the abstract! ( I have sent you
private email about this in the past, but it certainly deserves
to be said in public).

Dan

Post a reply to this message