|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I have a special development version that needs exhaustive testing of
> complex textures, so if you have a scene that uses wild combinations of
> the following features (and you happen to be using Unix), it would be
> greatly appreciated if you could give it a shot:
>
> - patterned textures
> - material_map
> - layered textures
> - overriding the texture of objects
> - non-canonical syntax to define textures (e.g specifying `pigment`
> directly on an object)
> - any other texture-related stuff you can think of
>
> The version in question can be found here:
>
> https://github.com/c-lipka/povray/tree/refactor/texture
>
> (source code only at this time)
>
> Also, I expect more follow-up versions to be coming, so I might ask you
> to re-test with the same scenes later.
There is one test file I use for quick regression tests in the wiki:
http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Dev:2.6/Py/Scripts/Render/POV-Ray#Test_files:
direct link to file :
https://wiki.blender.org/uploads/1/14/Regression_and_test_blendfiles.zip
it's in the TexturesTest folder once unzipped.
Using Blender Pov Exporter exports a complex setup with the "finish map" trick
for specular map , uses an alpha, normal map and diffuse. But no material_map if
i remember correctly.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mr" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> > Folks,
> >
> > I have a special development version that needs exhaustive testing of
> > complex textures, so if you have a scene that uses wild combinations of
> > the following features (and you happen to be using Unix), it would be
> > greatly appreciated if you could give it a shot:
> >
> > - patterned textures
> > - material_map
> > - layered textures
> > - overriding the texture of objects
> > - non-canonical syntax to define textures (e.g specifying `pigment`
> > directly on an object)
> > - any other texture-related stuff you can think of
> >
> > The version in question can be found here:
> >
> > https://github.com/c-lipka/povray/tree/refactor/texture
> >
> > (source code only at this time)
> >
> > Also, I expect more follow-up versions to be coming, so I might ask you
> > to re-test with the same scenes later.
>
> There is one test file I use for quick regression tests in the wiki:
> http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Dev:2.6/Py/Scripts/Render/POV-Ray#Test_files:
>
> direct link to file :
> https://wiki.blender.org/uploads/1/14/Regression_and_test_blendfiles.zip
>
> it's in the TexturesTest folder once unzipped.
> Using Blender Pov Exporter exports a complex setup with the "finish map" trick
> for specular map , uses an alpha, normal map and diffuse. But no material_map if
> i remember correctly.
I forgot to mention that I'm on windows without a building setup.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
to clipka:
Over the weekend, I'll check.
My system allows nodes make the most insane texture
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"LanuHum" <Lan### [at] yandexru> wrote:
> to clipka:
> Over the weekend, I'll check.
> My system allows nodes make the most insane texture
Look BlendPov-alternative: screenshots
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 12.08.2016 um 17:30 schrieb LanuHum:
> "LanuHum" <Lan### [at] yandexru> wrote:
>> to clipka:
>> Over the weekend, I'll check.
>> My system allows nodes make the most insane texture
>
>
> Look BlendPov-alternative: screenshots
Thanks!
Did you compare the results of the development version with those of
POV-Ray 3.7.0?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>
> Thanks!
> Did you compare the results of the development version with those of
> POV-Ray 3.7.0?
If you expect the time difference, then it does not exist.
Povray-3.7.0:
first test: 53 sec
second test: 49 sec
Povray-dev:
50 sec (screenshot)
second test: 52 sec
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 12.08.2016 um 18:30 schrieb LanuHum:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Did you compare the results of the development version with those of
>> POV-Ray 3.7.0?
>
> If you expect the time difference, then it does not exist.
No, I was refering to the render output: Are the resulting images the same?
If not, that would be bad news.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 12.08.2016 um 18:30 schrieb LanuHum:
> > clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >> Did you compare the results of the development version with those of
> >> POV-Ray 3.7.0?
> >
> > If you expect the time difference, then it does not exist.
>
> No, I was refering to the render output: Are the resulting images the same?
>
> If not, that would be bad news.
I posted a result for comparison.
In my opinion, there is no difference.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/09/2016 07:55 PM, clipka wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I have a special development version that needs exhaustive testing of
> complex textures, so if you have a scene that uses wild combinations of
> the following features (and you happen to be using Unix), it would be
> greatly appreciated if you could give it a shot:
>
> - patterned textures
> - material_map
> - layered textures
> - overriding the texture of objects
> - non-canonical syntax to define textures (e.g specifying `pigment`
> directly on an object)
> - any other texture-related stuff you can think of
>
> The version in question can be found here:
>
> https://github.com/c-lipka/povray/tree/refactor/texture
>
> (source code only at this time)
>
> Also, I expect more follow-up versions to be coming, so I might ask you
> to re-test with the same scenes later.
>
A material mapped from Norbert Kern's collection and run against:
---
A - POV-Ray 3.7.0.unofficial
B - POV-Ray 3.7.1-alpha.8764097.unofficial (current 3.7.1)
C - POV-Ray 3.7.1-alpha.8738139.unofficial (refactor/texture)
Is showing differences in all three when run with radiosity. See the
attached image where A, B and C shown left to right.
If run without radiosity A & C match well, but our current 3.7.1 is
still different.
If run without radiosity and finish statements A, B & C match well, so
something is different in finish {} with our current 3.7.1.
Unsure what might be expected and not. Where would you like to go from
here?
Bill P.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'nk0065compare.png' (190 KB)
Preview of image 'nk0065compare.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/31/2016 10:12 AM, William F Pokorny wrote:
> On 08/09/2016 07:55 PM, clipka wrote:
>
> Bill P.
Having looked at more results I have seen nothing which dies outright as
yet. About a third run so far have little change across the three
versions. The rest do and I'd say mostly in the shadows. There is I see
a new shadow cache message out of the refactored code.
Another with somewhat significant differences is attached.
Bill P.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'nk0008compare.png' (244 KB)
Preview of image 'nk0008compare.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |