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] 204213191226> ,
> 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