 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 21:49:45 -0600, Mike Hough wrote:
>> Please don't cast aspersions like this without backing them up with some
>> evidence of some sort. What evidence do you have that the POV-Team is not
>> fixing compatibility bugs wherever they're found?
>
> Most recently there was something in the thread "long time, no see" where
> someone brought up a difference in the clock value generated by a scene file
> and one of the responses was
>
> "As said, it is a precision issue. It is irrelevant what 3.1 would output
> because it is a precision issue and thus it really doesn't matter if
> something changed or not. Just get used to it."
Though that statement was made by a member of the POV-Team, it was not
an official position unless he said it was. I don't believe he did.
> I don't know if it was an actual bug or not but it seemed to be written off
> without investigation.
>
> In another thread:
>
> "In article <Xns### [at] 204 213191226> ,
> che### [at] sympaticoca
> (Coridon Henshaw) wrote:
>
>> Beta 10 ignores the angle statement unless it is the last
>> component in the camera block (this change wasn't documented) and requires
>> the up and right vectors to be given when using the orthographic camera.
>
> Neither is correct. Both work at any place in the camera statement.
> "
>
> This one is a bug that I noticed when rendering an older file.
The camera stuff is still being worked on, to the best of my knowledge.
--
#macro R(L P)sphere{L __}cylinder{L P __}#end#macro P(_1)union{R(z+_ z)R(-z _-z)
R(_-z*3_+z)torus{1__ clipped_by{plane{_ 0}}}translate z+_1}#end#macro S(_)9-(_1-
_)*(_1-_)#end#macro Z(_1 _ __)union{P(_)P(-_)R(y-z-1_)translate.1*_1-y*8pigment{
rgb<S(7)S(5)S(3)>}}#if(_1)Z(_1-__,_,__)#end#end Z(10x*-2,.2)camera{rotate x*90}
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3c576a20$1@news.povray.org>,
"Zeger Knaepen" <zeg### [at] studentkuleuvenacbe> wrote:
> (I think I need some sleep :)
I think you just need less caffeine and/or sugar...
--
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Zeger Knaepen wrote:
> Now this is a reply that's helping me to understand why POV3.5 was made. tnx :)
> I didn't know the MegaPov code was like that. I've never looked at POV-Ray's
source.
Perhaps a little history might help -
http://news.povray.org/povray.announce.frequently-asked-questions/16698/106689/?tmax=100#106689
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
/*
On 29 Jan 2002 22:26:26 -0500, Ron Parker wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 04:21:21 +0100, Zeger Knaepen wrote:
>>> True. Personally, I don't understand why you can't use a texture_map in a
>>> layered texture. Let me investigate that a little further.
>> tnx :)
>
> Well, looking at the code, the main reason is that it would be a major
> rewrite if it were possible at all. But don't lose hope.
Okay, for those of you who didn't lose hope, I have something resembling
good news. It's true that you can't layer over texture maps. But the
next best thing is to not have to use a texture map.
Notes:
- This won't work with blurred refraction. POV uses only the normal
of the top layer to spawn a refracted ray. Sorry, but this isn't
likely to change in the near future.
- The limit on the number of layers you can have in a single texture
is currently 20, so you can't use more than 20 samples minus the
number of other layers you want to use. I'm not sure, but I think
that number doesn't need to be so low.
- Note the changes from the VFAQ example: the pigment is only on the
lowest layer, and the reflection amount must be divided by the number
of samples (this division happens automatically in average texture_maps)
*/
#declare BlurAmount = .2; // How blurred the reflection should be
#declare BlurSamples = 10; // How many reflected rays to shoot
camera {location <0,1,-5> look_at y}
plane { y 0
finish {ambient 1}
pigment {gradient x color_map {[0 red 1][1 blue 1]} scale .5}
}
cylinder {0 5*y 1
texture {
pigment { color rgb 0 } // The pigment of the object here
}
#declare Ind = 0;
#declare S = seed(0);
#while(Ind < BlurSamples)
texture {
pigment {color rgbt 1}
finish { reflection .9/BlurSamples}
normal { bumps
BlurAmount
translate <rand(S),rand(S),rand(S)>*10
scale 1000
}
}
#declare Ind = Ind+1;
#end
}
--
plane{-z,-3normal{crackle scale.2#local a=5;#while(a)warp{repeat x flip x}rotate
z*60#local a=a-1;#end translate-9*x}pigment{rgb 1}}light_source{-9red 1rotate 60
*z}light_source{-9rgb y rotate-z*60}light_source{9-z*18rgb z}text{ttf"arial.ttf"
"RP".01,0translate-<.6,.4,.02>pigment{bozo}}light_source{-z*3rgb-.2}//Ron Parker
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mike Hough" <Ama### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:3c576c79@news.povray.org...
> Most recently there was something in the thread "long time, no see" where
> someone brought up a difference in the clock value generated by a scene
file
> and one of the responses was
>
> "As said, it is a precision issue. It is irrelevant what 3.1 would output
> because it is a precision issue and thus it really doesn't matter if
> something changed or not. Just get used to it."
>
> I don't know if it was an actual bug or not but it seemed to be written
off
> without investigation.
Bad example. The person with the problem had done something you are told
never to do with floating point values, and was upset when it (as predicted)
eventually failed on him.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker wrote:
> > "As said, it is a precision issue. It is irrelevant what 3.1 would output
> > because it is a precision issue and thus it really doesn't matter if
> > something changed or not. Just get used to it."
>
> Though that statement was made by a member of the POV-Team, it was not
> an official position unless he said it was. I don't believe he did.
That one was a direct quote. I thought it was a bit abrupt but figure
that since Thorsten knows more about the inner-workings of POV-Ray
than I far be it from me to question him on it.
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 20:05:31 -0800, Ken wrote:
>
>
> Ron Parker wrote:
>
>> > "As said, it is a precision issue. It is irrelevant what 3.1 would output
>> > because it is a precision issue and thus it really doesn't matter if
>> > something changed or not. Just get used to it."
>>
>> Though that statement was made by a member of the POV-Team, it was not
>> an official position unless he said it was. I don't believe he did.
>
> That one was a direct quote. I thought it was a bit abrupt but figure
> that since Thorsten knows more about the inner-workings of POV-Ray
> than I far be it from me to question him on it.
I'm not questioning the factual accuracy of the statement (i.e. that it is,
indeed, a precision issue.) I'm just saying the tone is not necessarily
indicative of official policy.
--
#macro R(L P)sphere{L F}cylinder{L P F}#end#macro P(V)merge{R(z+a z)R(-z a-z)R(a
-z-z-z a+z)torus{1F clipped_by{plane{a 0}}}translate V}#end#macro Z(a F T)merge{
P(z+a)P(z-a)R(-z-z-x a)pigment{rgbt 1}hollow interior{media{emission T}}finish{
reflection.1}}#end Z(-x-x.2y)Z(-x-x.4x)camera{location z*-10rotate x*90}
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker wrote:
> I'm not questioning the factual accuracy of the statement (i.e. that it is,
> indeed, a precision issue.) I'm just saying the tone is not necessarily
> indicative of official policy.
My Bad. (don't you hate it when people say that? I do.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 20:11:47 -0800, Ken wrote:
>
>
> Ron Parker wrote:
>
>> I'm not questioning the factual accuracy of the statement (i.e. that it is,
>> indeed, a precision issue.) I'm just saying the tone is not necessarily
>> indicative of official policy.
>
> My Bad. (don't you hate it when people say that? I do.)
Nope, mine. I didn't make that clear in the original post.
(And yes, I do. Your bad what? Breath?)
--
#local R=<7084844682857967,0787982,826975826580>;#macro L(P)concat(#while(P)chr(
mod(P,100)),#local P=P/100;#end"")#end background{rgb 1}text{ttf L(R.x)L(R.y)0,0
translate<-.8,0,-1>}text{ttf L(R.x)L(R.z)0,0translate<-1.6,-.75,-1>}sphere{z/9e3
4/26/2001finish{reflection 1}}//ron.parker@povray.org My opinions, nobody else's
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
news:3C576D9E.D6CEA9B8@pacbell.net...
>
>
> 25ct wrote:
>
> > In actual fact, It was a very confusing time for me as Megapov and 3.1
were
> > being talked about quite a lot in the forums, and as a result, I now
have
> > 3.1g, Megapov 0.7 and 3.5 beta10 installed.
>
> Is that all? I've got 1.0, 2.2, 3.01, 3.1, 3.5 and a half dozen or more
> patched versions installed. :)
Well you've been around for aeons.... ;)
~Steve~
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
