> Of course. It wasn't meant to be a final solution or work-around. Just to
> see what's going on with the triangles/normals.
>

Well, it works fine as a workaround for me, cause I've got
512 MB RAM... And lots of GB free space for Disc-Swapping...

> Uhm, I can't really tell since I peek to the newsgroup about once a week or
> so. Speaking for myself: I simply don't have the time. Neither to use 3.1g,
> nor to test the beta's, nor to download new betas through a 32kB dial-in
> line (even the 1MB whatever-compilation is painful for loading)....
> But I agree with you in thinking that beta testing should be a "group-job".
> At least to spread the test cases and multiply the "way of usage".
>

I don't meant to push anyone to do something they don't have
the time to. And of course you should only feel meant if
you actually download the betas, but just ignore bugs you've
encountered...

>
> BTW: what is the special thing which prevents you to use 3.1g?
>

Enhanced Media, trace() and photons/radiosity are the
things I really need if I want to create a very realistic image,
that also traces in less than a year to look good... ;-)

> I'm sorry that it didn't really help, but it's interesting that it did
> return some further result.
>

It helped! Perhaps someone got the final cue due to that,
but it always, even if its only to define the problem a little
more detailed.

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html

Post a reply to this message