POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.beta-test : POV-Ray v3.8.0-alpha.9861167 Server Time
29 Mar 2024 06:55:51 EDT (-0400)
  POV-Ray v3.8.0-alpha.9861167 (Message 19 to 28 of 28)  
<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Initial 10 Messages
From: clipka
Subject: Re: POV-Ray v3.8.0-alpha.9861167
Date: 22 Oct 2018 17:33:36
Message: <5bce4230@news.povray.org>
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

From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: POV-Ray v3.8.0-alpha.9861167
Date: 23 Oct 2018 02:40:16
Message: <5bcec250$1@news.povray.org>
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)

From: jr
Subject: Re: POV-Ray v3.8.0-alpha.9861167
Date: 23 Oct 2018 03:25:01
Message: <web.5bcecc5fef23b9626427f7f90@news.povray.org>
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

From: clipka
Subject: Re: POV-Ray v3.8.0-alpha.9861167
Date: 23 Oct 2018 12:14:05
Message: <5bcf48cd$1@news.povray.org>
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

From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: POV-Ray v3.8.0-alpha.9861167
Date: 24 Oct 2018 02:40:46
Message: <5bd013ee$1@news.povray.org>
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

From: clipka
Subject: Re: POV-Ray v3.8.0-alpha.9861167
Date: 25 Oct 2018 02:05:06
Message: <5bd15d12$1@news.povray.org>
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

From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: POV-Ray v3.8.0-alpha.9861167
Date: 25 Oct 2018 02:39:27
Message: <5bd1651f$1@news.povray.org>
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

From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: POV-Ray v3.8.0-alpha.9861167
Date: 26 Oct 2018 03:28:21
Message: <5bd2c215@news.povray.org>
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

From: clipka
Subject: Re: POV-Ray v3.8.0-alpha.9861167
Date: 26 Oct 2018 11:50:33
Message: <5bd337c9$1@news.povray.org>
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

From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: POV-Ray v3.8.0-alpha.9861167
Date: 27 Oct 2018 02:47:08
Message: <5bd409ec@news.povray.org>
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

<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Initial 10 Messages

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.