![](/i/fill.gif) |
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 19:29:39 +0900, "R. Suzuki" <r-s### [at] aist go jp> wrote:
> I think only the sentense "Warning: The maximum gradient found was 184.775."
> is enough for the evaluatation result.
I can't agree. When there are more then one isosurfaces simetimes initial value
is only way to recognize where founded value shuold be applied.
ABX
--
#declare _=function(a,b,x){((a^2)+(b^2))^.5-x}#default {pigment{color rgb 1}}
union{plane{y,-3}plane{-x,-3}finish{reflection 1 ambient 0}}isosurface{ //ABX
function{_(x-2,y,1)|_((x+y)*.7,z,.1)|_((x+y+2)*.7,z,.1)|_(x/2+y*.8+1.5,z,.1)}
contained_by{box{<0,-3,-.1>,<3,0,.1>}}translate z*15finish{ambient 1}}//POV35
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: wrong report about max_gradient
Date: 19 Nov 2001 06:37:43
Message: <3bf8ef07@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Skiba <abx### [at] babilon org> wrote:
> POV 3.5 b 7 on PII 233 128 MB with NT 4 Sp 6
>
> I had such syntax within isosurface:
>
> max_gradient 10
> evaluate 1, 10, 0.99
>
> but renderer said after trace
>
> Warning: The maximum gradient found was 184.775, but max_gradient of
> the isosurface was set to 1988.679. Adjust max_gradient to
> get a faster rendering of the isosurface.
>
> IMO 1988.679 <> 10. Expected behaviour, misunderstand or bug ?
See
From: "JRG" <jrg### [at] hotmail com>
Newsgroups: povray.beta-test
Subject: Isosurfaces *much* slower in beta 7?
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 23:07:31 +0100
Message-ID: <3bdf24b3$1@news.povray.org>
Xref: news.povray.org povray.beta-test:2475
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trf de
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: wrong report about max_gradient
Date: 19 Nov 2001 06:41:54
Message: <3bf8f002@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
In article <3bf8df16$1@news.povray.org> , "R. Suzuki" <r-s### [at] aist go jp>
wrote:
>> Warning: The maximum gradient found was 184.775, but max_gradient of
>> the isosurface was set to 1988.679. Adjust max_gradient to
>> get a faster rendering of the isosurface.
>
> I think only the sentense "Warning: The maximum gradient found was 184.775."
> is enough for the evaluatation result.
The problem is that many people don't read the documentation and then
complain about "holes and other bugs" with isosurfaces (see several messages
in these groups). I would also prefer a shorter message, but as long as
many people who use a free software cannot be asked to read the
documentation before reporting something as a bug this message is a
inconvenience that has to be forced upon all users :-(
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trf de
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 12:37:42 +0100, "Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trf de>
wrote:
> > IMO 1988.679 <> 10. Expected behaviour, misunderstand or bug ?
>
> See
>
> From: "JRG" <jrg### [at] hotmail com>
> Newsgroups: povray.beta-test
> Subject: Isosurfaces *much* slower in beta 7?
> Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 23:07:31 +0100
> Message-ID: <3bdf24b3$1@news.povray.org>
> Xref: news.povray.org povray.beta-test:2475
I don't like bothering but there is nothing about difference between typed value
and outputed value. in that thread :-(
Perhaps it was misunderstand but I reported here that I wrote 10 in script but
report message said I wrote 1988.679. I know meaning of the message. It is
annoing when you are trying find isosurface from many isosurfaces to apply
calculated value.
ABX
--
#declare _=function(a,b,x){((a^2)+(b^2))^.5-x}#default {pigment{color rgb 1}}
union{plane{y,-3}plane{-x,-3}finish{reflection 1 ambient 0}}isosurface{ //ABX
function{_(x-2,y,1)|_((x+y)*.7,z,.1)|_((x+y+2)*.7,z,.1)|_(x/2+y*.8+1.5,z,.1)}
contained_by{box{<0,-3,-.1>,<3,0,.1>}}translate z*15finish{ambient 1}}//POV35
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 12:41:53 +0100, "Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trf de>
wrote:
> The problem is that many people don't read the documentation and then
> complain about "holes and other bugs" with isosurfaces.
IMO you misunderstand this bug report. I wrote 10 but report said I wrote more
than 1900. I understand inner behaviour, I just pointed out is says false.
ABX
--
#declare _=function(a,b,x){((a^2)+(b^2))^.5-x}#default {pigment{color rgb 1}}
union{plane{y,-3}plane{-x,-3}finish{reflection 1 ambient 0}}isosurface{ //ABX
function{_(x-2,y,1)|_((x+y)*.7,z,.1)|_((x+y+2)*.7,z,.1)|_(x/2+y*.8+1.5,z,.1)}
contained_by{box{<0,-3,-.1>,<3,0,.1>}}translate z*15finish{ambient 1}}//POV35
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: wrong report about max_gradient
Date: 19 Nov 2001 08:01:41
Message: <3bf902b5@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Skiba <abx### [at] babilon org> wrote:
>> The problem is that many people don't read the documentation and then
>> complain about "holes and other bugs" with isosurfaces.
>
> IMO you misunderstand this bug report. I wrote 10 but report said I wrote more
> than 1900. I understand inner behaviour, I just pointed out is says false.
I was not refering to you or the bug report at all. I was only pointing out
the need for the additional parts of the message that appear unnecessary for
those who did read the documentation.
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trf de
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: wrong report about max_gradient
Date: 19 Nov 2001 08:05:40
Message: <3bf903a4@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Skiba <abx### [at] babilon org> wrote:
> I don't like bothering but there is nothing about difference between typed
> value and outputed value. in that thread :-(
> Perhaps it was misunderstand but I reported here that I wrote 10 in script but
> report message said I wrote 1988.679. I know meaning of the message. It is
> annoing when you are trying find isosurface from many isosurfaces to apply
> calculated value.
Here it is:
>From: "Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trf de>
>Newsgroups: povray.beta-test
>Subject: Re: Isosurfaces *much* slower in beta 7?
>Date: Mit, 31. Okt 2001 10:27 Uhr
>Message-ID: <3bdfc402@news.povray.org>
>Xref: news.povray.org povray.beta-test:2503
>
>> That's really sad, i was just starting to use it intensively.
>
> That is part of beta testing. It is not really a serious problem, it is
> just very slow...
>
>> Apart from
>> being incredibly slow it also seems to produce wrong results.
>
> No, it only changes your max_gradient. The reported found maximum gradient
> value is still correct.
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trf de
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 14:05:38 +0100, "Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trf de>
wrote:
> > No, it only changes your max_gradient. The reported found maximum gradient
> > value is still correct.
But I didn't wrote about 'found' value but about initial value!!!
ABX
--
#declare _=function(a,b,x){((a^2)+(b^2))^.5-x}#default {pigment{color rgb 1}}
union{plane{y,-3}plane{-x,-3}finish{reflection 1 ambient 0}}isosurface{ //ABX
function{_(x-2,y,1)|_((x+y)*.7,z,.1)|_((x+y+2)*.7,z,.1)|_(x/2+y*.8+1.5,z,.1)}
contained_by{box{<0,-3,-.1>,<3,0,.1>}}translate z*15finish{ambient 1}}//POV35
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: wrong report about max_gradient
Date: 19 Nov 2001 08:16:27
Message: <3bf9062b@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Skiba <abx### [at] babilon org> wrote:
>> > No, it only changes your max_gradient. The reported found maximum gradient
>> > value is still correct.
>
> But I didn't wrote about 'found' value but about initial value!!!
Yes, I say it "changes your max_gradient", so if it *changes* your
max_gradient, how can it report *your* max_gradient? - It cannot and thus it
will report the *changed* max_gradient!
Anyway, just take my word for it: This has long ago been fixed for the
_next_ beta.
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trf de
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: wrong report about max_gradient
Date: 19 Nov 2001 08:22:54
Message: <3bf907ae@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Skiba <abx### [at] babilon org> wrote:
>> > No, it only changes your max_gradient. The reported found maximum gradient
>> > value is still correct.
>
> But I didn't wrote about 'found' value but about initial value!!!
BTW, why do you try to convince me that it is a bug when I have already
*acknowledged* that it is a bug? (Rhetoric question only, no answer
expected!) Somehow communication failed completely...
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trf de
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |