Warp wrote:
>   It's not like 3.6 and 3.7 were mutually exclusive and couldn't be located
> in the same system. This is just silly.

Actually I understand his point of view. And certainly the delays in new
betas is an issue which I would like to fix. Hence my previous post.

I am not sure of what we will do on unix systems: a command-line parameter
isn't enough IIRC since it will just end up in a shell script or alias and
be forgotten about. OTOH having a keypress-based option is also a problem
since it will interfere with batch renders.

-- Chris

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> No, because I sometimes use POV in my daytime job to create images for 
>> others and I can not fiddle with my system clock.
> 
>   Using a beta for your daytime job? That's just silly.

No I am in research, we do these things all the time. Most of my 
colleagues use a matlab toolkit that hasn't been out of beta (or even 
into beta) for ten years now, mainly because I don't have the time to 
tie some loose ends. Apart from supporting the others I do have my own 
project. (and yes that involves creating meshes and rendering them)
> 
>   And you know, it's possible to have *both* 3.6 and 3.7 at the same time.
> 
Yes but as I won't use 3.7 for the reason stated, that would not make sense.

Post a reply to this message

Chris Cason <del### [at] deletethistoopovrayorg> wrote:
> dkanter wrote:
> > First of all, does anyone know when beta 23 will be released?  Second, would
> > the developers consider removing the date checking in betas?  I understand
> > the rationale behind it, but it seems like a very user-unfriendly feature,
> > especially when there isn't always a current beta available.
>
> Starting with the next Windows beta I will be changing things such that
> after the expiry date, a warning is displayed which has to be clicked-
> through rather than not running at all. Though there probably still will be
> an absolute timeout, it will be in the order of six to twelve months or so.
>
> -- Chris


can I disable the warning? I am using the beta for my fyp (for the SMP
speedup), and my distributed script wouldnt be able to "click" on it.

I am still trying to live with the pain of the splash screen and editor
window. Rendering a 10k frame animation and using /exit is no fun. And I am
using /exit instead of /render because of the behaviour difference in how
file extension is treated. (and no no I am not using batching subframe on
purpose, I prefer my program to check if each frame is rendered already or
not.)

so that if required, I could generate a sub video for user preview.

thx

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> >   And you know, it's possible to have *both* 3.6 and 3.7 at the same time.
> > 
> Yes but as I won't use 3.7 for the reason stated, that would not make sense.

  So you basically refuse to even try to test your scenes if they work
with pov3.7 or not? Yes, it makes a whole lot of sense.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Chris Cason <del### [at] deletethistoopovrayorg> wrote:
> I am not sure of what we will do on unix systems: a command-line parameter
> isn't enough IIRC since it will just end up in a shell script or alias and
> be forgotten about. OTOH having a keypress-based option is also a problem
> since it will interfere with batch renders.

  After the soft expiration date print a HUGE message warning about the
fact, with perhaps a 1-second pause?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > >   And you know, it's possible to have *both* 3.6 and 3.7 at the same time.
> > >
> > Yes but as I won't use 3.7 for the reason stated, that would not make sense.
>
>   So you basically refuse to even try to test your scenes if they work
> with pov3.7 or not? Yes, it makes a whole lot of sense.
>
> --
>                                                           - Warp

I can't believe we're still going through this yet again (what's that, 23
times this beta?).

I don't see the problem with using 3.6 if you want a stable, tested system.
3.7 is distributed for public beta testing, this should be known by the end
user.  By using the 3.7 betas (especially when not used for beta testing) I
should think that the user should have to accept the consequences related to
it (expiry date, slow release dates, etc.), otherwise use 3.6.

I actually do as Warp suggests here.  I use 3.6 (actually megaPOV for HDR
support) for anything I do right now, but when I have a particular scene or
test set up, I will run it through the beta to see if it kicks out any
problems (especially any HDR items).

After all this, it does look like Chris is finally going to bend to the
constant bombardment of complaints.  I do agree that perhaps there should
be some way to extend the expiry period in the event that a new one hasn't
been released, but, understanding the reasoning behind having the expiry,
it should not be endless or removed completely.

Perhaps codes that unlock it futher (say 1 week or 1 month increments) could
be built in that are released and posted on the beta page only when a beta
expires and is not replaced with a new one?

-tgq

Post a reply to this message

zeroin23 wrote:
> Chris Cason <del### [at] deletethistoopovrayorg> wrote:

>> Starting with the next Windows beta I will be changing things such that
>> after the expiry date, a warning is displayed which has to be clicked-
>> through rather than not running at all. Though there probably still will be
>> an absolute timeout, it will be in the order of six to twelve months or so.
> 
> can I disable the warning?

*sigh*

Chris gives us what everybody keeps begging for, and even that is not 
enough it seems...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/

Post a reply to this message

> can I disable the warning? I am using the beta for my fyp (for the SMP
> speedup), and my distributed script wouldnt be able to "click" on it.

No you can't disable the warning. This is a beta, consider yourself 
lucky they're giving us the chance to test it. They might as well not 
even distribute it. If you want SMP and no warning or expiration date, 
wait for 3.7 release, or start multiple instances of 3.6 rendering 
different frames.

> I am still trying to live with the pain of the splash screen and editor
> window. Rendering a 10k frame animation and using /exit is no fun. And I am
> using /exit instead of /render because of the behaviour difference in how
> file extension is treated. (and no no I am not using batching subframe on
> purpose, I prefer my program to check if each frame is rendered already or
> not.)

Compile your own POV-Ray without the GUI at all. Or I could do it for 
you; tell me what CPU optimizations to enable.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>>   And you know, it's possible to have *both* 3.6 and 3.7 at the same time.
>>>
>> Yes but as I won't use 3.7 for the reason stated, that would not make sense.
> 
>   So you basically refuse to even try to test your scenes if they work
> with pov3.7 or not? Yes, it makes a whole lot of sense.
> 
What would be the point if I am not going to spend time figuring out 
what went wrong if it does?

I admit that for 3.7 I might have done some testing because it does not 
seem to offer new features. Most of the other beta's did introduce new 
things but testing those would put me in danger of not being able to 
render just before a deadline imposed by a third party, so I can't use 
them. In short I did some beta testing before, that got me nearly into 
trouble, as a result I decided not to do anymore beta testing. I 
explained that and all you do is try not to understand me and be 
sarcastic, while you could also have been satisfied that your work has 
been used in visualizing some cutting edge research. Well, it has been a 
laugh. :(

BTW thanks Chris I really appreciate it that you at least try to solve 
my problems and make it possible for me to do beta testing again. Would 
you be interested in benchmark results for a 256-processor SGI Altix 
4700 system? If so I could ask my former PhD student who has access to 
one of these.

Post a reply to this message

Chris Cason wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>>   It's not like 3.6 and 3.7 were mutually exclusive and couldn't be located
>> in the same system. This is just silly.
> 
> Actually I understand his point of view. And certainly the delays in new
> betas is an issue which I would like to fix. Hence my previous post.
> 
> I am not sure of what we will do on unix systems: a command-line parameter
> isn't enough IIRC since it will just end up in a shell script or alias and
> be forgotten about. OTOH having a keypress-based option is also a problem
> since it will interfere with batch renders.
Be sure that switching the parameter does prevent running *before* the 
deadline and possibly change the parameter every month, so people have 
to consciously reedit the batch script every now and then.

Post a reply to this message