Sorry, I think that I have to play a little bit the devils advocat here. Yes, we

number now. For example the +c issue is not solved as stated. Thomas and I has
found problemns  with it
(http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3C5239bc36%40news.povray.org%3E/)
never addressed by the three Christophs developing POV, but only ignored. For me
this is only RC 8, but not an final solution,

Best regards,
Michael

Post a reply to this message

On 08/11/2013 10:09 AM, Stephen wrote:
>
> Thank you and everyone concerned with this. :-D

Oops! I got an exception and a crash when running Tim Nikias'a LSSM file 
lssm_wlk.pov, from http://www.nolights.de/downloads.html#lssm

If you did not get the dump, I still have the files.

Sorry. :-(

BTW I changed nothing in the file, not even using a #version statement.
And I did run flow.pov okay.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 09.11.2013 19:29, schrieb MichaelJF:
> Sorry, I think that I have to play a little bit the devils advocat here. Yes, we

> number now. For example the +c issue is not solved as stated. Thomas and I has
> found problemns  with it
>
(http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3C5239bc36%40news.povray.org%3E/)
> never addressed by the three Christophs developing POV, but only ignored. For me
> this is only RC 8, but not an final solution,

Reports of the +C bug appeared only a short time ago, while we had 
already begun the last preparations for the actual release (which had 
virtually nothing to do with changes to the code; stuff like making the 
switch to the new license, setting up the Git repository, and other such 
stuff).

It seems that in this last phase, povray.beta-test hasn't been read by 
any of the developers on a regular basis, so we weren't even aware of 
these +C artifacts and their severity; from what I see now they would 
indeed have warranted halting the release process.

It should be mentioned that while povray.beta-test is a good place to 
discuss /suspected/ issues, the most reliable way of communicating 
/identified/ issues is via http://bugs.povray.org. New entries there 
trigger an email to the members of the dev team.

Post a reply to this message

On 10-11-2013 14:31, clipka wrote:
> Reports of the +C bug appeared only a short time ago, while we had
> already begun the last preparations for the actual release (which had
> virtually nothing to do with changes to the code; stuff like making the
> switch to the new license, setting up the Git repository, and other such
> stuff).
>
> It seems that in this last phase, povray.beta-test hasn't been read by
> any of the developers on a regular basis, so we weren't even aware of
> these +C artifacts and their severity; from what I see now they would
> indeed have warranted halting the release process.
>
> It should be mentioned that while povray.beta-test is a good place to
> discuss /suspected/ issues, the most reliable way of communicating
> /identified/ issues is via http://bugs.povray.org. New entries there
> trigger an email to the members of the dev team.
>

Yes, I forgot to file a bug report indeed, so I take the blunt impact of 
the responsibility :-)

I shall try to reproduce the problem. However, I have not noticed it in 
any of my later renders, since my mention of it. So, it may be fairly 
difficult to do, especially to make it reproducible. :-(

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

OK.

Something very simple to do:

1. take the woodbox.pov scene;
2. add a radiosity block;
3. uncomment the area lights;
4. start render and stop when some part of the image is ready;
5. add +c;
6. restart render and watch if problem occurs at the boundary between 
already rendered image and newly parsed one;
7. if not, stop render and repeat process until problem appears.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thank you. What a beautiful masterpiece of code.

Post a reply to this message

>Chris Cason  on date 08/11/2013 10.43 wrote:
> Folks,
>
> After many years of beta-testing, POV-Ray 3.7 has been officially
> released.

Great!
Thank you to you and all the POV-team!
Paolo

Post a reply to this message

Chris Cason <del### [at] deletethistoopovrayorg> wrote:
> After many years of beta-testing, POV-Ray 3.7 has been officially
> released. Please see http://www.povray.org/download/ for the final
> downloads (which currently are only for Windows).

Marvellous!

> Thanks to all the developers, documentation wranglers, beta-testers,
> bug reporters, scene authors, contributors and supporters who made
> this possible.

Seconded and thirded. I think this calls for a bit of celebratory POVing :D

Bill

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 10-11-2013 14:31, clipka wrote:
> > Reports of the +C bug appeared only a short time ago, while we had
> > already begun the last preparations for the actual release (which had
> > virtually nothing to do with changes to the code; stuff like making the
> > switch to the new license, setting up the Git repository, and other such
> > stuff).
> >
> > It seems that in this last phase, povray.beta-test hasn't been read by
> > any of the developers on a regular basis, so we weren't even aware of
> > these +C artifacts and their severity; from what I see now they would
> > indeed have warranted halting the release process.
> >
> > It should be mentioned that while povray.beta-test is a good place to
> > discuss /suspected/ issues, the most reliable way of communicating
> > /identified/ issues is via http://bugs.povray.org. New entries there
> > trigger an email to the members of the dev team.
> >
>
> Yes, I forgot to file a bug report indeed, so I take the blunt impact of
> the responsibility :-)
>
> I shall try to reproduce the problem. However, I have not noticed it in
> any of my later renders, since my mention of it. So, it may be fairly
> difficult to do, especially to make it reproducible. :-(
>
> Thomas

Sometimes I'm a bit fast with nitpicking I fear. But in the first discussion
about this problem Chris Cason himself stated that this issue would be a main
obstacle to release 3.7 finally. I could have filed a bug report too, so Thomas
is not the only one to be blamed. On the other side, playing more and more with
the new additions to the Windows editor, e.g. having a texture menu with
pictures and so on (may be I have not noticed that earlier, but I think this is
new) and all the other additions from 3.6 to 3.7 (sslt e.g.) I now think, that a
final release is suited. I don't apologize for my first opinion - since one
cannot apologize for an opinion - but I changed my opinion now, playing around
with this wonderful version.

Best regards,
Michael

Post a reply to this message

Am 12.11.2013 20:23, schrieb MichaelJF:

> Sometimes I'm a bit fast with nitpicking I fear. But in the first discussion
> about this problem Chris Cason himself stated that this issue would be a main
> obstacle to release 3.7 finally.

Indeed. And we wouldn't have done a final release if we hadn't thought 
it fixed for good.

As a matter of fact we /did/ fix the problem reported back then: 
Yet-unrendered blocks sometimes being skipped when continuing any kind 
of render. What cropped up now was instead already-rendered blocks being 
overwritten with single-colored blocks when continuing radiosity 
renders. Though it would take a slow-rendering scene to notice the 
difference.

> I could have filed a bug report too, so Thomas
> is not the only one to be blamed. On the other side, playing more and more with
> the new additions to the Windows editor, e.g. having a texture menu with
> pictures and so on (may be I have not noticed that earlier, but I think this is
> new) and all the other additions from 3.6 to 3.7 (sslt e.g.) I now think, that a
> final release is suited. I don't apologize for my first opinion - since one
> cannot apologize for an opinion - but I changed my opinion now, playing around
> with this wonderful version.

Glad to hear that :-)

Post a reply to this message