|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 21.10.2018 um 09:29 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 6-10-2018 13:14, William F Pokorny wrote:
>> Aside 2: IIRC there is still a thread collision in the current
>> implementation (which Thomas, in 3.8 no longer needs to be "naked"
>> thanks to Christoph's updates) -
> Hmmm... is that so? I am currently using an isosurface and the
> max_gradient warning only shows if the isosurface is "naked" i.e.
> without #declare.
>
> Using v 3.8.0-xtokenizer.9844488+av609.msvc with Win7
It doesn't matter whether you use `#declare` or not; what really matters
is whether there are actually rays shot at the isosurface during the render.
So a `#declare`d isosurface that is never actually inserted into the
scene will never get a warning.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22-10-2018 23:33, clipka wrote:
> It doesn't matter whether you use `#declare` or not; what really matters
> is whether there are actually rays shot at the isosurface during the render.
>
> So a `#declare`d isosurface that is never actually inserted into the
> scene will never get a warning.
>
@ clipka and Bill:
I am probably totally misunderstanding something, but I attach here a
simple scene of the Kluchikov Ring with a on/off switch between a
'declared' and a 'non-declared' isosurface. The 'non-declared' one shows
a max_gradient warning at the end of the render; the 'declared' one does
not.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'ak_my favourite isosurface test.7z.zip' (2 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 21.10.2018 um 01:51 schrieb clipka:
> >> did you receive the email?
>
> Nevermind. I was a bit confused. Yes, the e-mail did reach me,
phew.
> and I
> managed to come up with a fix in no time flat(*), but hadn't gotten
> around to providing feedback yet, or push the fix to the repo for that
> matter.
I saw the weather you were having the past two weeks, and suspected you might be
out sunbathing. :-)
> (*Interestingly, the bug was in a piece of code I had always been
> suspicious about whether I had implemented it correctly. Turns out I
> hadn't.)
regards, jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 23.10.2018 um 08:40 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 22-10-2018 23:33, clipka wrote:
>> It doesn't matter whether you use `#declare` or not; what really matters
>> is whether there are actually rays shot at the isosurface during the
>> render.
>>
>> So a `#declare`d isosurface that is never actually inserted into the
>> scene will never get a warning.
>>
>
> @ clipka and Bill:
>
> I am probably totally misunderstanding something, but I attach here a
> simple scene of the Kluchikov Ring with a on/off switch between a
> 'declared' and a 'non-declared' isosurface. The 'non-declared' one shows
> a max_gradient warning at the end of the render; the 'declared' one does
> not.
You are aware that the two isosurfaces are not identical? They differ in
the max_gradient setting.
Not that it would make any difference though - I do get a warning for
both of them.
Did you double-check that you're really seeing what you think you're seeing?
What version of POV-Ray are we talking about?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23-10-2018 18:14, clipka wrote:
> Am 23.10.2018 um 08:40 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> On 22-10-2018 23:33, clipka wrote:
>>> It doesn't matter whether you use `#declare` or not; what really matters
>>> is whether there are actually rays shot at the isosurface during the
>>> render.
>>>
>>> So a `#declare`d isosurface that is never actually inserted into the
>>> scene will never get a warning.
>>>
>>
>> @ clipka and Bill:
>>
>> I am probably totally misunderstanding something, but I attach here a
>> simple scene of the Kluchikov Ring with a on/off switch between a
>> 'declared' and a 'non-declared' isosurface. The 'non-declared' one
>> shows a max_gradient warning at the end of the render; the 'declared'
>> one does not.
>
> You are aware that the two isosurfaces are not identical? They differ in
> the max_gradient setting.
Correct. My bad. Both max_gradients should be 0.75 (or what ever).
>
> Not that it would make any difference though - I do get a warning for
> both of them.
I do not. I only get a warning when the isosurface is /not/ declared.
>
>
> Did you double-check that you're really seeing what you think you're
> seeing?
Yes, absolutely!!
>
> What version of POV-Ray are we talking about?
v 3.8.0-xtokenizer.9844488+av609.msvc with Win7
You are right (of course you are right!): I had not yet used the alpha
version 3.8.0-alpha.9861167+av620.msvc14.win as I thought they were more
or less identical. It shows the warning for both cases indeed. I had not
been aware that the case had been solved in between. Thanks!
Phwwww..... That was close! I am glad I do not have to put myself under
psychiatric treatment after all ;-)
[where are my dried frog pills...?]
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 24.10.2018 um 08:40 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> What version of POV-Ray are we talking about?
>
> v 3.8.0-xtokenizer.9844488+av609.msvc with Win7
Ah, the experimetal new tokenizer! Now that changes things. Since we're
talking about alpha.9861167, I had presumed that you were using at least
some alpha as well.
> You are right (of course you are right!): I had not yet used the alpha
> version 3.8.0-alpha.9861167+av620.msvc14.win as I thought they were more
> or less identical. It shows the warning for both cases indeed. I had not
> been aware that the case had been solved in between. Thanks!
Has it? I don't recall any such fix, nor it even being necessary. So
looks like something broke during the refactoring for the tokenizer
changes. That's conceivable.
I'll investigate that once I turn my attention back to the tokenizer.
> Phwwww..... That was close! I am glad I do not have to put myself under
> psychiatric treatment after all ;-)
>
> [where are my dried frog pills...?]
Probably right where I left my glasses.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25-10-2018 8:05, clipka wrote:
> Am 24.10.2018 um 08:40 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>
>>> What version of POV-Ray are we talking about?
>>
>> v 3.8.0-xtokenizer.9844488+av609.msvc with Win7
>
> Ah, the experimetal new tokenizer! Now that changes things. Since we're
> talking about alpha.9861167, I had presumed that you were using at least
> some alpha as well.
Yes, it is bad practice to mix posts on different versions like I did. I
apologise.
>
>> You are right (of course you are right!): I had not yet used the alpha
>> version 3.8.0-alpha.9861167+av620.msvc14.win as I thought they were
>> more or less identical. It shows the warning for both cases indeed. I
>> had not been aware that the case had been solved in between. Thanks!
>
> Has it? I don't recall any such fix, nor it even being necessary. So
> looks like something broke during the refactoring for the tokenizer
> changes. That's conceivable.
Well, it definitely was an issue with versions 3.6 and below, and, as
far as I recall, with version 3.7.
>
> I'll investigate that once I turn my attention back to the tokenizer.
>
>
>> Phwwww..... That was close! I am glad I do not have to put myself
>> under psychiatric treatment after all ;-)
>>
>> [where are my dried frog pills...?]
>
> Probably right where I left my glasses.
That might well be the case indeed.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25-10-2018 8:39, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Well, it definitely was an issue with versions 3.6 and below, and, as
> far as I recall, with version 3.7.
>
Just to confirm, after testing: Also an issue with version
3.7.0.msvc10.win64
The correction must have been made in one of the 3.8.0 alphas.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 26.10.2018 um 09:28 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 25-10-2018 8:39, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> Well, it definitely was an issue with versions 3.6 and below, and, as
>> far as I recall, with version 3.7.
>>
> Just to confirm, after testing: Also an issue with version
> 3.7.0.msvc10.win64
>
> The correction must have been made in one of the 3.8.0 alphas.
Having dug a bit in the revision history (my memory isn't as good as it
used to be), there has indeed been such a fix, but that was already back
in v3.7.1-alpha.8913469. Commit 3f1de0d6, dated 2016-12-11.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26-10-2018 17:50, clipka wrote:
> Am 26.10.2018 um 09:28 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> On 25-10-2018 8:39, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> Well, it definitely was an issue with versions 3.6 and below, and, as
>>> far as I recall, with version 3.7.
>>>
>> Just to confirm, after testing: Also an issue with version
>> 3.7.0.msvc10.win64
>>
>> The correction must have been made in one of the 3.8.0 alphas.
>
> Having dug a bit in the revision history (my memory isn't as good as it
> used to be), there has indeed been such a fix, but that was already back
> in v3.7.1-alpha.8913469. Commit 3f1de0d6, dated 2016-12-11.
Ah OK. As a matter of fact, I do not have any of the 3.7.1 versions any
more... except UberPOV: 1.37.1.1-alpha.8871946.msvc14.win64, which also
shows the issue as it happens.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |