 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
When tracing the same scene with megapov (to fit some "glows") there are
some CSG errors... Apparently depending of the point of view.
The same shape but with differents rotation show some "holes"...
Whats the problem ? (Megapov 1.0 on WinXP)
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'versions.jpg' (71 KB)
Preview of image 'versions.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
news:3fe354a7@news.povray.org...
> When tracing the same scene with megapov (to fit some "glows") there are
> some CSG errors... Apparently depending of the point of view.
Hmm, the correct way to post this is 1) in the povray.binaries.images for
the image and 2) in the povray.unofficial.patches group for the question. As
posting the same message in different groups is frowned upon too, if I were
you I'd quickly delete these posts and repost them correctly where they
belong, before very large people with big sticks turn you into a bloody,
slow-rendering, pulp.
I'm clueless about the problem itself, but a bit of code would surely help.
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
LightBeam wrote:
> When tracing the same scene with megapov (to fit some "glows") there are
> some CSG errors... Apparently depending of the point of view.
> The same shape but with differents rotation show some "holes"...
> Whats the problem ? (Megapov 1.0 on WinXP)
I am somewhat astonished to see you post a binary attachment although
you have been told not to just a few threads ago ('UV mapping problem ?').
I know English is not your native language but from your writing i
conclude that your knowledge is sufficient to understand that
attachments are deprecated in the non-binaries groups. It would be
strongly advisable, not to say a matter of good conduct, to respect this
rule once you have been made aware of it.
Concerning the question: there is a known problem with rendering torus
objects in MegaPOV 1.0 but i don't know the details. A minimal test
scene could help.
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 25 Oct. 2003 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I am somewhat astonished to see you post a binary attachment although
> you have been told not to just a few threads ago ('UV mapping problem ?').
I'm apologize for this... :-{
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I've found :
>Christoph Hormann said :
>Concerning the question: there is a known problem with rendering torus
>objects in MegaPOV 1.0 but i don't know the details.
So I put "sturm" keyword in the torus I use in CSG and it was fixed.
Thanks :-))
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
LightBeam wrote:
> So I put "sturm" keyword in the torus I use in CSG and it was fixed.
...as I suggested some days ago to someone else on zoo-logique :-)
That's amusing, since POV-Ray 3.0 virtually eliminated the need for
"sturm". (prior that, it was very commmon to use it). Could it
be related to something like the access to internal polynomial
solver ?
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Why does pov-core doesn't put "automaticly" the sturm keyword ? It
doesn't take any time more to render !!!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3fe49353$1@news.povray.org>, LightBeam <s.f### [at] tiscali fr>
wrote:
> Why does pov-core doesn't put "automaticly" the sturm keyword ? It
> doesn't take any time more to render !!!
Simple: because it takes longer to render. A little more than half again
as long, in the test scene I just wrote. What gave you the idea it
didn't?
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
