POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.tools.poser : PoseRay 3.13.15 BETA: wrong POV-Ray +AM command line parameter Server Time: 12 Dec 2018 20:40:22 GMT
  PoseRay 3.13.15 BETA: wrong POV-Ray +AM command line parameter (Message 1 to 5 of 5)  
From: clipka
Subject: PoseRay 3.13.15 BETA: wrong POV-Ray +AM command line parameter
Date: 17 Mar 2012 06:12:43
Message: <4f642b5b$1@news.povray.org>
I just noticed that the PoseRay 3.13.15 BETA puts the wrong +AM command 
line parameter in the *_POV_scene.pov header comment, giving me this:

//This file was designed to run with the following command line options:
// +W1024 +H768 +FN +AM3 +A -UA

when I chose recursive AA.

The INI file is ok.


Post a reply to this message

From: FlyerX
Subject: Re: PoseRay 3.13.15 BETA: wrong POV-Ray +AM command line parameter
Date: 27 Mar 2012 00:40:19
Message: <4f710c73$1@news.povray.org>
On 3/17/2012 1:12 AM, clipka wrote:
> I just noticed that the PoseRay 3.13.15 BETA puts the wrong +AM command
> line parameter in the *_POV_scene.pov header comment, giving me this:
>
> //This file was designed to run with the following command line options:
> // +W1024 +H768 +FN +AM3 +A -UA
>
> when I chose recursive AA.
>
> The INI file is ok.

Thanks for the bug report. This, among other things, will be fixed on 
the next PoseRay beta that will be released this week.

regards,

FlyerX


Post a reply to this message

From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: PoseRay 3.13.15 BETA: wrong POV-Ray +AM command line parameter
Date: 27 Mar 2012 07:00:28
Message: <4f71658c@news.povray.org>
On 27-3-2012 2:40, FlyerX wrote:
> On 3/17/2012 1:12 AM, clipka wrote:
>> I just noticed that the PoseRay 3.13.15 BETA puts the wrong +AM command
>> line parameter in the *_POV_scene.pov header comment, giving me this:
>>
>> //This file was designed to run with the following command line options:
>> // +W1024 +H768 +FN +AM3 +A -UA
>>
>> when I chose recursive AA.
>>
>> The INI file is ok.
>
> Thanks for the bug report. This, among other things, will be fixed on
> the next PoseRay beta that will be released this week.
>

About next release (or later) you may have seen in p.b.i. Norbert Kern's 
Coloured leaves and the use he made of an old Poseray version to export 
mesh files instead of mesh2. Would it be an idea to make this an option 
in future Poseray? mesh2 remaining the default of course. It might be 
useful for different things.

Thomas


Post a reply to this message

From: FlyerX
Subject: Re: PoseRay 3.13.15 BETA: wrong POV-Ray +AM command line parameter
Date: 27 Mar 2012 10:16:31
Message: <4f71937f$1@news.povray.org>
On 3/27/2012 2:00 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 27-3-2012 2:40, FlyerX wrote:
>> On 3/17/2012 1:12 AM, clipka wrote:
>>> I just noticed that the PoseRay 3.13.15 BETA puts the wrong +AM command
>>> line parameter in the *_POV_scene.pov header comment, giving me this:
>>>
>>> //This file was designed to run with the following command line options:
>>> // +W1024 +H768 +FN +AM3 +A -UA
>>>
>>> when I chose recursive AA.
>>>
>>> The INI file is ok.
>>
>> Thanks for the bug report. This, among other things, will be fixed on
>> the next PoseRay beta that will be released this week.
>>
>
> About next release (or later) you may have seen in p.b.i. Norbert Kern's
> Coloured leaves and the use he made of an old Poseray version to export
> mesh files instead of mesh2. Would it be an idea to make this an option
> in future Poseray? mesh2 remaining the default of course. It might be
> useful for different things.
>
> Thomas
>

I saw that post. I really do not understand the projection pattern well 
enough to see why is mesh{} still needed. The old mesh format was 
removed from PoseRay's code base a long time ago. It created files that 
were way too large and it was slow to parse. Often, with large models, 
POV-Ray would run out of memory. I will look into it but I doubt mesh{} 
will return to PoseRay.

FlyerX


Post a reply to this message

From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: PoseRay 3.13.15 BETA: wrong POV-Ray +AM command line parameter
Date: 27 Mar 2012 11:39:46
Message: <4f71a702@news.povray.org>
On 27-3-2012 12:16, FlyerX wrote:
> I saw that post. I really do not understand the projection pattern well
> enough to see why is mesh{} still needed. The old mesh format was
> removed from PoseRay's code base a long time ago. It created files that
> were way too large and it was slow to parse. Often, with large models,
> POV-Ray would run out of memory. I will look into it but I doubt mesh{}
> will return to PoseRay.
>

Fair enough. Just a suggestion.

I have not yet experimented with Norbert's example. I am indeed aware of 
the size problem related with mesh{} files. POV-Tree for example writes 
in mesh{} as the program never made it into a mesh2{} version 
unfortunately, and some tree files get memory problems indeed.
[Note to self: should try to import such a file in Poseray and re-export 
as mesh2.]

Thomas


Post a reply to this message

Copyright 2003-2008 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.