Christoph Hormann wrote:

> Wolfgang Wieser wrote:
>> 
>> Yes, but there are two reasons for my approach:
>> (1) Opening a 1Gb file in an external program, selecting some part,
>>     saving it... all that for every view port is too much work for me.
>> (2) The cut-down chunk needs extra calculations to make sure the
>>     image map projection is exactly correct.
>> My patch saves me from both these.
>> [...]
> 
> I don't understand (2) and (1) of course is no more an issue with an
> external program than it is with a POV-Ray patch.
> 
(1) is easier with POVRay than with an external program and much faster 
    because POVRay simply reads part of the info while the external proggy 
    requires reading the complete info, processing it, write a part and 
    then make POVRay read that part. 
(2) the cut-down image will be projected around the complete e.g. sphere. 
    To make use of it, I need to scale and rotate the texture in a way 
    that the original size is restored. The patch does not require that. 

I just write that because you asked. 

I am NOT actively demanding inclusion of that patch. All I wanted to 
express by my first posting was that in case there are several people 
who find it useful, one could consider doing it. That was unlikely 
from the beginning...

> No, please reread the past postings in this concern.  The proposal to
> work on the unix specific part of the 3.5 code did only involve the X11
> display code.  This is exactly as it is in 3.5 and the changes you made
> there could be merged with the 3.6 code without any trouble.
> 
IMO, it was pure luck that the code parts did not interfere. 
And it effectively hinders me to think of any more useful things 
in that concern. 

I may describe my situation as follows. 

(A)
For the partial image reading patch, watiting is no solution. 
I need it now, so I implement it now. I asked if there is interest 
but that fact that there is none does not pose any trouble because 
I am writing it for _my_ purpose in the first place. It currently is 
a not very clean hack anyways (but I would have considered writing 
it cleanly in case real interest exists). 

(B)
For unix.cpp the situation is differently. I think one can live with 
it but there are some things to be improved. So, due to the fact that 
I am using a great tool written by some clever people who share it with 
me (I mean POVRay), there are some days where I simply think that it 
would be the apropriate action to give something back by sitting down 
and writing some improvements. (I do not talk about simple bug fixes.) 

But these people effectively tell me that they don't care. 
So, I say "Well... I can spend my time more usefully."
It simply does not make sense to re-write old code. Or to quote you 
again: 
> You'd probably save some time [...]

The sad thing is that this does not help either party. 

BTW, you did not comment on megapov. 

Wolfgang

Post a reply to this message