For the moved light, and any other set up, it's another beautyful aspect.
But i stay right in my boots for that ....;-)))

For the code, i havent an idea about what happen with the source.
But i understand that is not easy to really know all
thing happen in the 'troubling unknowquantic rendering',
if i can naming it like that.

Albun

Post a reply to this message

On 5/9/19 10:36 AM, Albun wrote:
> 
> 
> For the moved light, and any other set up, it's another beautyful aspect.
> But i stay right in my boots for that ....;-)))
> 
> For the code, i havent an idea about what happen with the source.
> But i understand that is not easy to really know all
> thing happen in the 'troubling unknowquantic rendering',
> if i can naming it like that.
> 
> Albun
> 

OK. The actual issue is in the PhotonTrace::TraceRay code in photons.cpp 
where we have:

     found = FindIntersection(bestisect, ray, precond, postcond);
     if(found)
     {...

this borrows 'NoSomethingFlagRayObjectCondition precond' from trace.cpp 
which starts off with:

bool NoSomethingFlagRayObjectCondition::operator()(const Ray& ray, 
ConstObjectPtr object, double) const
{
     if(ray.IsImageRay() && Test_Flag(object, NO_IMAGE_FLAG))
         return false;

which returns false because of how ray.IsImageRay() is set up. We can 
hard code around the issue by changing:

     found = FindIntersection(bestisect, ray, precond, postcond);

to

     found = FindIntersection(bestisect, ray);

but I think the right thing to do is probably to change the 
ray.IsImageRay() definition in ray.h from:

  bool IsImageRay() const { return primaryRay || (refractionRay && 
!reflectionRay && !radiosityRay); }

to:

bool IsImageRay() const { return (primaryRay && !photonRay) || 
(refractionRay && !reflectionRay && !photonRay && !radiosityRay); }

or suppose some photon code specific precond a possibility too. My guess 
at the moment is that this 3.6 to 3.7 change was not intentional.

Christoph?

Bill P.

Post a reply to this message

Am 09.05.2019 um 20:51 schrieb William F Pokorny:

> but I think the right thing to do is probably to change the 
> ray.IsImageRay() definition in ray.h from:
> 
>   bool IsImageRay() const { return primaryRay || (refractionRay && 
> !reflectionRay && !radiosityRay); }
> 
> to:
> 
> bool IsImageRay() const { return (primaryRay && !photonRay) || 
> (refractionRay && !reflectionRay && !photonRay && !radiosityRay); }
> 
> or suppose some photon code specific precond a possibility too. My guess 
> at the moment is that this 3.6 to 3.7 change was not intentional.
> 
> Christoph?

I need to examine this closer. The ray conditions have proven to be a 
tricky business before (which is probably also why this change slipped 
in there in the first place; I'm pretty sure it is unintentional indeed).

Can someone submit a GitHub issue for this?

Post a reply to this message

On 5/10/19 8:36 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 09.05.2019 um 20:51 schrieb William F Pokorny:
> 
...
> 
> I need to examine this closer. The ray conditions have proven to be a 
> tricky business before (which is probably also why this change slipped 
> in there in the first place; I'm pretty sure it is unintentional indeed).
> 
> Can someone submit a GitHub issue for this?

I'll do it in bit and post a pointer when done.

For those compiling at home, see the branch (off master) at:

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

if you too want to set up a regular pull of the proposed ray.h change 
into your version of POV-Ray for testing/immediate work.

Bill P.

Post a reply to this message

I never built a source on Windows; and at the beginning of 'my problem
no_image', i don't really know that the change can be, or may be, in the code.

I only 'flying' in SDL.


Best regards


Albun

Post a reply to this message

On 5/10/19 9:38 AM, William F Pokorny wrote:
> On 5/10/19 8:36 AM, clipka wrote:
...
>>
>> Can someone submit a GitHub issue for this?
> 
> I'll do it in bit and post a pointer when done.
> 

See:

https://github.com/POV-Ray/povray/issues/373

Bill P.

Post a reply to this message

Hello,

I followed your link to the source 'povray-fix-photonNoImageIssue'
I would like to know it was possible to receive a built of this version from
you.

I was interested in the vs2019, the 'builting' seems to me a test too
consequent.

Thanks

Albun

Post a reply to this message

Sorry i forget, for the os it's windows.

Albun

Post a reply to this message

Hello,


I would like to know it was possible to have a built of this version for
Windows10, from you.
https://github.com/wfpokorny/povray/tree/fix/photonNoImageIssue



Albun

Post a reply to this message

On 5/14/19 9:01 AM, Albun wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I would like to know it was possible to have a built of this version for
> Windows10, from you.
> https://github.com/wfpokorny/povray/tree/fix/photonNoImageIssue
> 
> Albun
> 

In a hurry to get the new stuff I see! :-) I was busy with real/other 
life than POV-Ray for a couple days. In any case I don't read the news 
groups every day. Sometimes, I intentionally avoid it for a time so I 
stay focused on my current task...

Offering a general response to your posts of the last few days, POV-Ray 
development doesn't have a somehow paid - or equivalently motivated(1) - 
core of developers unlike some other open source projects. Everyone's 
doing it primarily as a hobby. This means both that there is a lack of 
folks wanting - and able - to do the uninteresting grind of release/test 
work and often that those few are otherwise busy. I'd say today there 
are only two active such developers - and I'm not one of those.

(1) Master/PHD thesis work, new widget / world change believers. A few 
crazy folk perhaps... :-) Once in a blue mood someone will fund specific 
work in POV-Ray, but this tends from what I've seen to be funding for 
specific features and not the day to day review/test/release work.

To your specific question, no, it's not today possible for me to provide 
a release for Windows10. I'm a linux user for starters.

That said Christoph has created some github windows release build 
mechanisms I don't understand, but see. Especially if something 
something similar exists/can be created for (ppa-ish) for Debian/Ubuntu 
builds, I might - someday - dig into doing personal releases from my 
playpen of code branches and ideas.

Bill P.

Post a reply to this message