On 2/3/20 10:30 AM, Francescodario Cuzzocrea wrote:
> 
> Hello !!
> 
...
> 
> Can anyone help me out to understand what I'm doing wrong ?
> Here is the POV source I'm using along with the Blender model :
> https://gitlab.com/bosconovic/spacacecraft-pov
> 
...
> 

Hi. It looks like there is a bounding problem. My up front bet is it has 
something to do with the large scale of your scene, but debug work would 
have to be done to be certain. I can see it's bounding because I have a 
branch of master (v3.8):

https://github.com/wfpokorny/povray/tree/fix/restore36UserBoundingControl

which restores the v3.6 ability to 'truly' turn off all bounding and it 
is merged into my personal version of povray(1).

Anyway! A -mb work around hides the fact there is a bounding issue, but 
given you have not many shapes and that meshes have their own 'shape' 
bounding running with no bounding would likely work for you.

I'm occupied with other things at the moment, but a shot in the dark 
might be to specify a bounded_by object for the satellite mesh as a box 
or sphere much larger than is determined from the mesh automatically. 
You would need to keep user bounding on (is it -ur or +ur...? the 
default these days strips 'most' user specified bounding). Getting 
ridiculously large user bounding going perhaps another way to work 
around the actual bounding issue for now.

If you cannot figure out how to do all yourself, hopefully others can 
assist you with determining the automatic bounds currently set and flags 
or options to try this. Of late only checking in here once and a while.

Aside 2: Those tif files are really slow to parse... Surprised me. 
Though I don't often work with large image files for textures maybe this 
speed is normal?

Bill P.

(1) Release 3.7 intentionally - or perhaps not - changed code so 
specifying -mb or +mb<count>, with a count so high bounding does not get 
used, doesn't always turn off the last level bounding checks.

I noticed years back because -mb is a useful way to get the bounding out 
of the way and just check the shape/solver's returned roots. However, 
the pull request I submitted to fix this was never picked up and after 
sitting for years I closed it out. Long winded way to say -mb would be a 
work around for you - except the only way for you to use it would be to 
compile my branch - or duplicate the changes in a compile of your own.

Post a reply to this message