Am 18.11.2013 17:54, schrieb clipka:
> Am 18.11.2013 17:31, schrieb Ive:
>>
>> Using VS2010 I get 3 compile time errors
>>
>> 1>..\..\source\backend\lighting\photons.cpp(417): error C2661:
>> 'pov::Trace::WNRX::WNRX' : no overloaded function takes 4 arguments
>>
>> 3>..\..\vfe\vfedisplay.cpp(61): error C2661:
>> 'pov_frontend::Display::Display' : no overloaded function takes 4
>> arguments
>>
>> 3>C:\Work\POV\UberPov\libraries\boost\boost/bind/bind.hpp(515): error
>> C2593: 'operator [' is ambiguous
>>
>> and as a result a link error as povbackend64.lib is not build.
>
> The first two errors should be fixed now. Need to figure out what's
> wrong with the 3rd though.

Looks like some files didn't make it into the Git repo. Shoot me if it 
doesn't work NOW.

Post a reply to this message

Am 18.11.2013 17:54, schrieb clipka:
> Am 18.11.2013 17:31, schrieb Ive:
>>
>> Using VS2010 I get 3 compile time errors
>>
>> 1>..\..\source\backend\lighting\photons.cpp(417): error C2661:
>> 'pov::Trace::WNRX::WNRX' : no overloaded function takes 4 arguments
>>
>> 3>..\..\vfe\vfedisplay.cpp(61): error C2661:
>> 'pov_frontend::Display::Display' : no overloaded function takes 4
>> arguments
>>
>> 3>C:\Work\POV\UberPov\libraries\boost\boost/bind/bind.hpp(515): error
>> C2593: 'operator [' is ambiguous
>>
>> and as a result a link error as povbackend64.lib is not build.
>
> The first two errors should be fixed now. Need to figure out what's
> wrong with the 3rd though.

see povray.unofficial.patches for the follow-up.

Post a reply to this message

Am 18.11.2013 19:09, schrieb clipka:
>
> Looks like some files didn't make it into the Git repo. Shoot me if it
> doesn't work NOW.
>
No need for violence - successfully build.
Will play with it tomorrow and... thanks!

-Ive

Post a reply to this message

Ok, something goes wrong.
While the example scenes do work well a very simple scene of mine (where 
I just did try to add a bit of blurred reflection to a table) did not!
So I used one of your own scene file (stochastic_reflection_blur.pov) 
and simplified it until it shows the same problem.

command line:
+w800 +h600 +am2 +a0.1 +r3 +FE

None of the fancy features are even used anymore and render time is 
about 10 seconds with 3.7 but UberPov did after 10 minutes not even 
finish the first block.


//=================================================================================

//#version 3.7;

#version unofficial patch 3.7;
#patch "upov-reflection-roughness" 0.9;


global_settings {
   max_trace_level 25
   assumed_gamma 1.0
}

camera {
   perspective angle 50
   location  <0.0, 3,-5.0>
   right     x*image_width/image_height
   look_at   <0.0, 1.0, 0.0>
}

light_source {
   <3000,3000,0> color rgb 1
   area_light x*500,y*500, 9,9 adaptive 1 circular orient
}

sky_sphere {
   pigment {
     gradient <0,1,0>
     color_map {
       [0.00 srgb <0.6,0.7,1.0>]
       [0.35 srgb <0.1,0.0,0.8>]
       [0.65 srgb <0.1,0.0,0.8>]
       [1.00 srgb <0.6,0.7,1.0>]
     }
     scale 2
   }
}

plane{ <0,1,0>, 0
   texture{
     pigment{ checker color rgb 1 color rgb 0.1 }
     finish {
       ambient 0
       diffuse 0.7
       reflection { 1.0 fresnel} // roughness 0.005 }
   //    specular albedo 0.1
   //    roughness 0.005
     }
   }
   interior { ior 1.5 }
}


//=================================================================================

Post a reply to this message

Am 19.11.2013 14:41, schrieb Ive:
> Ok, something goes wrong.
> While the example scenes do work well a very simple scene of mine (where
> I just did try to add a bit of blurred reflection to a table) did not!
> So I used one of your own scene file (stochastic_reflection_blur.pov)
> and simplified it until it shows the same problem.

I'll dig into this.

Post a reply to this message

Am 19.11.2013 15:09, schrieb clipka:
> Am 19.11.2013 14:41, schrieb Ive:
>> Ok, something goes wrong.
>> While the example scenes do work well a very simple scene of mine (where
>> I just did try to add a bit of blurred reflection to a table) did not!
>> So I used one of your own scene file (stochastic_reflection_blur.pov)
>> and simplified it until it shows the same problem.
>
> I'll dig into this.

Dang, can you believe it? I actually managed to forget to initialize the 
new reflection parameters to their intended defaults.

Should be fixed now.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/19/2013 09:39 AM, clipka wrote:
> Dang, can you believe it? I actually managed to forget to initialize the
> new reflection parameters to their intended defaults.

LOL ... must be contagious

Post a reply to this message

Am 17.11.2013 23:25, schrieb clipka:
> Hi folks,
>
> Anyone interested in test-driving a few unofficial additions to POV-Ray
> 3.7.0, please have a look at https://github.com/UberPOV/UberPOV.

...

> More is yet to come. An obvious next step will be to implement a Monte
> Carlo-based replacement for radiosity (I guess you know where this is
> heading), but a few odds & ends will also be thrown in, such as a
> feature to determine the modification time of a file (so that you can
> e.g. decide whether some auto-generated files might be outdated).


An update is available at the aforementioned location, introducing that 
file_time function.

The update also contains a few official bugfixes that haven't made it 
into the POV-Ray Git repo yet.

Post a reply to this message

On 2013-11-18 09:36, clipka wrote:
> I know that you love that trick, and have in some tutorial made claims
> that it is a sufficient replacement for inbuilt blurred reflections, but
> the above facts make it no more than a nasty kludge. One that can be
> used to good effect if you invest sufficient time and effort, but a
> kludge nonetheless.

Micronormals (which is how real-world blurred reflections happen, afaik) 
are a kludge?  I'd think the inbuilt blurred reflection would be moreso, 
as it's a corner-cutting technique to save time and computational 
resources...  ;)

(Of course, this is semantic and depends on whether your ideal rendering 
engine allows processes indistinguishable from reality or not.)

Post a reply to this message

Am 21.11.2013 00:03, schrieb Tim Cook:
> On 2013-11-18 09:36, clipka wrote:
>> I know that you love that trick, and have in some tutorial made claims
>> that it is a sufficient replacement for inbuilt blurred reflections, but
>> the above facts make it no more than a nasty kludge. One that can be
>> used to good effect if you invest sufficient time and effort, but a
>> kludge nonetheless.
>
> Micronormals (which is how real-world blurred reflections happen, afaik)
> are a kludge?  I'd think the inbuilt blurred reflection would be moreso,
> as it's a corner-cutting technique to save time and computational
> resources...  ;)

Indeed, but the inbuilt ones are not /nasty/ :-P (because they're much 
easier to use).

That said, the most kludgy thing ot the "current trick" (in terms of 
realism, not in terms of ease of use as I originally meant) is not so 
much that it uses micronormals in the first place, but that it averages 
multiple micronormals textures to achieve the oversampling required. 
Real-world blurred reflections normally don't do /that/ ;-).

Post a reply to this message