In article <3a22478f$1@news.povray.org>, "Bob H." 
<per### [at] aolcom?subject=PoV-News:%20&body=Relating%20to%20POV-Ra
y:> wrote:

> I found that if you give the location a slight placement offset from 
> <0,0,0> that glows will transform if said to later in their own 
> statements.  Just that they can't start at zero otherwise nothing 
> happens.

I just ran a test with MegaPOV 0.6 and the in-development version of 
MegaPOVPlus...neither of them had the problem you described. Glows 
transform exactly as expected when starting at < 0, 0, 0>...or any other 
location.

-- 
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/

<><

Post a reply to this message

Ah, and we have our first Scrooge of the season as well :-)...

"Rick [Kitty5]" <ric### [at] kitty5com> wrote in message
news:3a2259a5@news.povray.org...
> but its not even december yet!!!! - your worse than high street shops!!
>
>
> --
> Rick
> Kitty5 WebDesign - http://www.kitty5.com
> Hi-Impact web site design & database driven e-commerce
> TEL : +44 (01625) 266358 - FAX : +44 (01625) 611913 - ICQ : 15776037
>
> PGP Public Key
> http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Hmm, who said anything about Christmas? You'll notice my carefully crafted
posting only referred to it as the "holiday season". ;-) Although I agree
that the star on top does have a definite Christian significance. I'll see
about replacing it with something - perhaps a lump of coal...

"Steve" <ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet> wrote in message
news:slr### [at] zero-ppslocaldomain...
> That's great but I'm not a Christian and I havn't
> got anything to sell, so Christmas really ain't my
> scene.
>
> But happy Christmas anyway, I do believe in holidays
> of any kind.
>
> --
> Cheers
> Steve              email mailto:ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet
>
> %HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee  0 pps.
>
> web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/
>
> or  http://start.at/zero-pps
>
>   5:59pm  up 47 days, 20:23,  2 users,  load average: 1.18, 1.13, 1.05

Post a reply to this message

Thanks Chris. I haven't been to clear on the whole issue of translating
glows. Your statement confused me, so I did some trial and error tests. It
seems that, as you stated, you can translate the glow itself, such as:

light_source{<0, 0, 0> color rgb 0.045
 glow {size 0.4 type 0 translate 10*y }
 fade_distance 4 fade_power 2}

But you can't do:

light_source{<0, 0, 0> color rgb 0.045
 glow {size 0.4 type 0}
 fade_distance 4 fade_power 2 translate 10*y}

Is this correct? If so, that's going to be the problem with this scene.
Remco created the tree by creating the branches and ornaments one at a time,
then translating them into the proper position. The original idea, of
course, was to add the lights to the branches along with the ornaments, but
this won't work given the way that the things are.

Is anyone else as confused as I am? Is the glow is an attribute of the light
source object, not an object itself? How can you specify the location of the
light source and not be able to translate it? And why can you translate the
glow if it's an attribute? Ouch, my brain just siezed up!

"Chris Huff" <chr### [at] maccom> wrote in message
news:chrishuff-11C61B.16121127112000@news.povray.org...
> In article <3a21d88b@news.povray.org>, "Dave Cook"
> <nospam.davepc2@netdave.,com> wrote:
>
> > The glow lights can't be transformed yet (soon, I hope?)
>
> Glows can be transformed just fine...the only problems with
> transformations are that they don't move when you transform the light
> source they are attached to or the union statement you put them in.
>
> --
> Christopher James Huff
> Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
> TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/
>
> <><

Post a reply to this message

Sorry for the immediate followup - I just checked out p.u.p and saw your
post about working on this. I'll try to be patient. I see others are as
perplexed as I am.

"Chris Huff" <chr### [at] maccom> wrote in message
news:chrishuff-11C61B.16121127112000@news.povray.org...
> In article <3a21d88b@news.povray.org>, "Dave Cook"
> <nospam.davepc2@netdave.,com> wrote:
>
> > The glow lights can't be transformed yet (soon, I hope?)
>
> Glows can be transformed just fine...the only problems with
> transformations are that they don't move when you transform the light
> source they are attached to or the union statement you put them in.
>
> --
> Christopher James Huff
> Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
> TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/
>
> <><

Post a reply to this message

"Chris Huff" <chr### [at] maccom> wrote in message
news:chrishuff-2D72F0.16153327112000@news.povray.org...
> In article <3a22478f$1@news.povray.org>, "Bob H."
> <per### [at] aolcom?subject=PoV-News:%20&body=Relating%20to%20POV-Ra
> y:> wrote:
>
> > I found that if you give the location a slight placement offset from
> > <0,0,0> that glows will transform if said to later in their own
> > statements.  Just that they can't start at zero otherwise nothing
> > happens.
>
> I just ran a test with MegaPOV 0.6 and the in-development version of
> MegaPOVPlus...neither of them had the problem you described. Glows
> transform exactly as expected when starting at < 0, 0, 0>...or any other
> location.

Yes, thanks for checking up on that Chris.
In the confusion of while loops and unions and such I thought I hadn't any translation
(movement) of the glows
even with the translate and rotate inside the glow statements unless location was
given some number to start
with.
Rechecked it myself just now and sure enough they do get placed even with a location 0
put first.  Mind playing
tricks on me again.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

"Dave Cook" <nospam.davepc2@netdave.,com> wrote in message
news:3a23019d@news.povray.org...
> But you can't do:
>
> light_source{<0, 0, 0> color rgb 0.045
>  glow {size 0.4 type 0}
>  fade_distance 4 fade_power 2 translate 10*y}
>
> Is this correct? If so, that's going to be the problem with this scene.
> Remco created the tree by creating the branches and ornaments one at a time,
> then translating them into the proper position. The original idea, of
> course, was to add the lights to the branches along with the ornaments, but
> this won't work given the way that the things are.

Yep, same situation I encountered, almost.  I had simply replaced the lights with
glows in order to speed up
rendering.  I had to put the transformation into each glow statement (not all that
many anyhow) instead of the
union of each while loop segment.

> Is anyone else as confused as I am? Is the glow is an attribute of the light
> source object, not an object itself? How can you specify the location of the
> light source and not be able to translate it? And why can you translate the
> glow if it's an attribute? Ouch, my brain just siezed up!

I understand there's some stumbling block as of yet.  What I didn't understand is what
you just said.  j/k
glows are independent creatures far as I know.  Double up on those transformations for
now.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

Thanks Bob. Unfortunately, the final tree is the result of several compound
translations of individual pieces. It's impossible to know where the final
position of the lights will be in the scene when the glows are defined. It
seems that my kludge is indeed the only way for now, until glows behave as
attributes attached to light_sources.

"Bob H."
<per### [at] aolcom?subject=PoV-News:%20&body=Relating%20to%20POV-Ray:>
wrote in message news:3a23d326$1@news.povray.org...
> "Dave Cook" <nospam.davepc2@netdave.,com> wrote in message
news:3a23019d@news.povray.org...
> > But you can't do:
> >
> > light_source{<0, 0, 0> color rgb 0.045
> >  glow {size 0.4 type 0}
> >  fade_distance 4 fade_power 2 translate 10*y}
> >
> > Is this correct? If so, that's going to be the problem with this scene.
> > Remco created the tree by creating the branches and ornaments one at a
time,
> > then translating them into the proper position. The original idea, of
> > course, was to add the lights to the branches along with the ornaments,
but
> > this won't work given the way that the things are.
>
> Yep, same situation I encountered, almost.  I had simply replaced the
lights with glows in order to speed up
> rendering.  I had to put the transformation into each glow statement (not
all that many anyhow) instead of the
> union of each while loop segment.
>
> > Is anyone else as confused as I am? Is the glow is an attribute of the
light
> > source object, not an object itself? How can you specify the location of
the
> > light source and not be able to translate it? And why can you translate
the
> > glow if it's an attribute? Ouch, my brain just siezed up!
>
> I understand there's some stumbling block as of yet.  What I didn't
understand is what you just said.  j/k
> glows are independent creatures far as I know.  Double up on those
transformations for now.
>
> Bob
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Dave Cook wrote:

> Hmm, who said anything about Christmas? You'll notice my carefully crafted
> posting only referred to it as the "holiday season". ;-) Although I agree
> that the star on top does have a definite Christian significance. I'll see
> about replacing it with something - perhaps a lump of coal...

Buckminsterfullerene!!!
</nerd>

--
David Fontaine  <dav### [at] faricynet>  ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery:  http://davidf.faricy.net/

Post a reply to this message