"Greg M. Johnson" <gregj:-)565### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:3d1326ab$1@news.povray.org...
> "Christopher James Huff" <chr### [at] maccom> wrote in message
> news:pan### [at] maccom...
> > That is not true. It worked the first time I compiled it,
>
> Your code is quite logical. It's what 0.7a IIRC refused. I'll try it in
0.7a
> again "later"...
>
An update here for you.  I don't have megaPOV installed but I downloaded the
help and had a look.  The problem I see (and I don't know which is correct)
is that in 3.5, the pigments are wrapped in the object wrapper, whereas the
megaPOV docs place them after the object wrapper so either megaPOV acts
slightly differently or the docs are wrong.

ie.
3.5 says:

pigment{
  object{
    my_object
    pigment{pig1},
    pigment{pig2}
  }
}

megaPOV says:

pigment{
  object{my_object}
  pigment{pig1},
  pigment{pig2}
}

so you might want to find out which is correct.

-tgq

Post a reply to this message

The following code is accepted:

#declare pigobj=box{-1,1}
#declare clothtexti=texture{pigment{object{pigobj color Blue, color Red}} }

The following code is rejected:

#declare pigobj=box{-1,1}
#declare clothtexti=texture{pigment{object{pigobj shirtpig, objectpig}} }

where shirtpig and object pig are called out earlier.

The error is:
"No matching } in pigment, pigment identifier found instead."


> > "Christopher James Huff" <chr### [at] maccom> wrote in message
> > news:pan### [at] maccom...
> > > That is not true. It worked the first time I compiled it,

Post a reply to this message

Wasn't it Greg M. Johnson who wrote:
>The following code is accepted:
>
>#declare pigobj=box{-1,1}
>#declare clothtexti=texture{pigment{object{pigobj color Blue, color Red}} }
>
>The following code is rejected:
>
>#declare pigobj=box{-1,1}
>#declare clothtexti=texture{pigment{object{pigobj shirtpig, objectpig}} }
>
>where shirtpig and object pig are called out earlier.
>
>The error is:
>"No matching } in pigment, pigment identifier found instead."

The correct syntax is

#declare clothtexti=texture{pigment{object{pigobj pigment{shirtpig},
pigment {objectpig}}} }


-- 
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure

Post a reply to this message

Mike Williams wrote:

> The correct syntax is
> #declare clothtexti=
> texture{
> pigment{object{pigobj
> pigment{shirtpig},
> pigment {objectpig}}} }
>

<weeps maniacally>   Thank you.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 22 Jun 2002 21:55:47 -0400, "Greg M. Johnson"
<"gregj;-)56590\""@aol.c;-)om> wrote:
> The following code is accepted:

This is already explained, but just a note, Greg. You probably missed MegaPOV
is _unofficial_ patch.

ABX

Post a reply to this message

If I'm using spheres or torii  in 0.7 and I have a question about the
syntax, should I post to p.u.-p.?

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 08:18:06 -0400, "Greg M. Johnson" <gregj:-)565### [at] aolcom>
wrote:
> If I'm using spheres or torii  in 0.7 and I have a question about the
> syntax, should I post to p.u.-p.?

Isn't syntax of box or torii already explained in documentation ? Are you
asking about syntax or bug ? Chris Huff already pointed You that there is
example file of object pattern - have You checked this ?
http://users.skynet.be/smellenbergh/demopictures/obj_patternb.jpg
http://users.skynet.be/smellenbergh/demopictures/obj_pattern.zip

ABX

Post a reply to this message

Restating,

While using MegaPov 0.7  I ran into an undesirable (IMHO and yet unbuggy)
aspect of using image_maps, an aspect most likely in existence as far back
as 3.02.   I asked if there were a way around this and someone suggested the
object pattern. (an off-topic suggestion???)  It was a very useful idea, but
the suggestion did not (IIRC) contain the proper syntax for 0.7.   So I
suppose the topicality-hawks would have me stop the thread right there and
move it to p.u.p.,  but I think that's quite absurd.   I have respect for
the topicality of p.g. such that I would never ask, for example,  about
0.7's proximity pattern here, but contempt for topicality if the above
scenario is against server policy........




news:om3ehug5fcmv929mar0ql8foialdpp5ud7@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 08:18:06 -0400, "Greg M. Johnson"
<gregj:-)565### [at] aolcom>
> wrote:
> > If I'm using spheres or torii  in 0.7 and I have a question about the
> > syntax, should I post to p.u.-p.?
>
> Isn't syntax of box or torii already explained in documentation ? Are you
> asking about syntax or bug ? Chris Huff already pointed You that there is
> example file of object pattern - have You checked this ?
> http://users.skynet.be/smellenbergh/demopictures/obj_patternb.jpg
> http://users.skynet.be/smellenbergh/demopictures/obj_pattern.zip
>
> ABX

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 13:16:32 -0400, "Greg M. Johnson" <gregj:-)565### [at] aolcom>
wrote:
> I think that's quite absurd

I consider this just the opposite. I understand documentation of MegaPOV was
not as good as current 3.5 documentation (respect to the Ingo and all
cooperators). There were sample files with (usually) proper syntax. But You
quickly called your syntax problem as bug in tool. That's too much of
simplification and/or laziness. Moreover since it was no longer connected with
image_map problem at all it was NTG. I expressed my protest becouse I always
considered You very experienced user. I'm not the owner of the server or
member of any team but I don't like such customs when specialized groups are
designed. How new users can learn proper behaviours if experienced one starts
messing?

followup to off-topic

ABX

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 13:16:32 -0500, Greg M. Johnson wrote:


> While using MegaPov 0.7  I ran into an undesirable (IMHO and yet
> unbuggy) aspect of using image_maps, an aspect most likely in existence
> as far back as 3.02.   I asked if there were a way around this and
> someone suggested the object pattern. (an off-topic suggestion???)  It
> was a very useful idea, but the suggestion did not (IIRC) contain the
> proper syntax for 0.7.

The original suggestion by TinCanMan used the correct syntax, though it
had a separate typo that he immediately corrected. You tried using an
image_map as a color instead of a pigment, and kept dropping out the
necessary pigment{} blocks when using declared pigments, despite every
example using them. I even pointed you to an existing sample file...

Warp did mention pigment_map, but he was confused, and there were plenty
of other working examples given. I count 5 examples by the time you
declared that MegaPOV had a bug.

This whole thing has gone on too long, lets just end it here, please?


-- 
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: <chr### [at] tagpovrayorg>
WWW: http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/

Post a reply to this message