Op 17/04/2021 om 05:20 schreef Kenneth:
> "Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>> "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, the 'Cornell box' scene is in SCENES/RADIOSITY (I had to hunt for it.)
>>
>> I peeked there, but it was the most cursory of late-night scans...
> 
> What?! You only *peeked* at it??  No No No, that is NOT the 'POV-ray way'. The
> rules are clearly spelled out in chapters 7,43, and 129 of the 'POV-ray
> Behavior' manual. Don't tell me you haven't read them??

Well... what did you expect, frankly? Big words and bla-bla imo. 
"late-night scans"...!  Whoaaa-ha-ha!

[have another beer]

>>
>>
>> And I do wish that kids like you and that DeGroot hoodlum would just
>> GROW UP and have a little maturity.  You spoiled children clearly flaunt
>> your privilege...
> 
> SPOILED?! Oh, you mean, because of that $50 million I inherited when I was 2
> months old? Naw, I've always been the same lovable, cuddly, ever-so-pleasant
> fellow that I was before then. I think.

Thanks for the loan, btw!  Whoaa-ha-haaa!

[Have abeer an otter...]

> 
>> ...you'd burn down the city around you to show it - maybe even plowing
>> through a crowd of quartz and feldspar lovers with your van in the process.
> 
> Personally, I would prefer olivine and soapstone lovers...they always irritate
> me...

nah... bunch of creeps... [burp]

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Op 11-4-2021 om 14:48 schreef Mr:
> [snip]  Or combine
> two variants of that pattern with both scales using a third masking /warping
> pattern, so that variation seems less homogenous. 

Experimental and with finish commented-out.

Not bad at all!

Thanks for the suggestion. It took some time, but I am getting there.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'layeredtextures_finish_test.jpg' (91 KB)

Preview of image 'layeredtextures_finish_test.jpg'

After reworking the top layer.


-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'mohoganypol2-2.jpg' (98 KB)

Preview of image 'mohoganypol2-2.jpg'

Op 16/04/2021 om 11:28 schreef Ive:
 > Well, my understanding was that this is not just about this particular
 > granite file, but about a correct way to convert in general old textures
 > from times were *never* assumed_gamma = 1.0 was used.
 >
 > Obviously this is not the case, sorry for this misunderstanding on my
 > part, but frankly you should have said so in the first place and should
 > not have added a bunch of buzz words borrowed from color science into
 > your header where these words make no sense at all.
 >

Yve,

Possibly, you are not going to read this, so I write for my own benefit 
(and for those who might be interested) and because I feel I am entitled 
to give a serious answer (after a bit of charivari to vent frustrations).

Initially, this whole exercise was indeed, about upgrading old files. As 
so often happens in the (creative) process, things evolved quite rapidly 
and soon enough granites21 was about generating a new granites 
construction, */based on the work of Daniel Meklenburg/*, I want to 
stress. I am afraid you missed the (gradual) shift to this new approach; 
I was taken by surprise myself I must confess. So, your contribution is 
/not/ a waste of time. On the contrary, it is invaluable for taking up 
the /original/ granites.inc and provide a comprehensive document 
corrected to the use of POV-Ray 3.7+ in a not too distant future. In 
your file there are many things I did not know/been aware of or had 
forgotten. So, again, thanks indeed for your contribution. You are not 
rid of me: in due time I shall give my comments on your file.

You and me, we are both part of the scientific community at large I 
understand. You are a professional (I guess) of the colour sciences; I 
am a professional of the geological sciences. The fundamental difference 
however between us, as I surmise, is that colour sciences are 
/necessarily/ part of the /exact/ sciences, while geological sciences 
are, for a large part, not. Geology is as much about reconstructing, 
from partly preserved items, environments and life from the past, 
without having enough elements to be able to do so in an /exact/ way. 
Where necessary, we make use of the exact sciences, and increasingly so, 
but we are as much indebted to creativity and leaps of faith in order to 
reach consensus and progress. We are rewarded by the visions and 
reconstructions of the ancient world as they evolve under our hands as 
it were.

This is why we have very different approaches to these matters of colour 
in particular. I certainly expect a rigorous approach from you, and I 
would have been surprised if you were not, in the matters of your 
expertise field. On the other hand, while acknowledging this, I feel 
rather free to use some results from the colour sciences as they are 
made available to the POV-Ray community, in maybe a twisty way but 
important for the creative process where the visible results are 
important. So, if I only talk for myself, I use different rgb and/or 
srgb elements together in the same scene and nobody can pinpoint them 
separately I am sure. I understand your irritation about the use of 
possibly inappropriate terms from the colour sciences and I got rid of 
them in the next version of granites21. Understand that my objective was 
to be as precise as possible, but without your kind of understanding 
this is certainly prone to errors.

A last remark. I take exception to your impatience when you mention that 
"it seems you did not even bother to look at my code" and that *within 
24 hours* of your initial post! I resent this indeed. You have 
absolutely no idea about the frequency and time I spend on POV-Ray, 
including reading and commenting on posts. I mentioned that I have a 
life in the Real World, as you have too I am sure, and that takes 
absolute priority. Well, let me tell you that during each 24 hours I 
spend maybe two hour *maximum* to POV-Ray (including posts), divided 
over several snippets of time during the day. So, gimme a break, OK?

All right. Enough about this. I hope you understand if you read this, 
and let's close the matter definitively. If you want to answer, you are 
welcome indeed, but I consider the war axe to be buried from now on.

Cheers

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:

Sarcasm and satire aside,
You need to deal with the fact that there is a large and rapidly increasing
number of people out in the world that suffer from mental illness.  They may
_seem_ normal in certain isolated settings, but it only takes the slightest
nudge to flip things over that threshold.

> I am afraid you missed the (gradual) shift to this new approach;

Nah,  If you pay attention to the "pattern" of posting, one can surmise that
like some other people, there's some type of monitoring software being used, and
after months or years of absence, they suddenly appear from seemingly nowhere to
get offended over something, rave, and generally "stir the pot".


> You and me, we are both part of the scientific community at large I
> understand.

Be careful.  You're projecting.  Soon you will begin to attempt to rationalize
the irrational and get "sucked in".  I can't tell you how many "scientists",
"professors", "grad students", "experts", "professionals", "mathematicians", and
"programmers" - who you'd think would be logical and at least stable - but you
shift to a certain topic, and it all goes straight out the window.
Imprinting, trauma, brainwashing, and Stockholm Syndrome are all very real, very
dangerous things.   Amongst many others.



> I understand your irritation about

.... everything.  It's the way everyone in the world is now.   They do
archaeology to uncover decades old thing to be offended about, and when that's
too much work, they invent fictitious "new" things to take offense at.

> A last remark. I take exception to your impatience when you mention that
> "it seems you did not even bother to look at my code" and that *within
> 24 hours* of your initial post! I resent this indeed. You have
> absolutely no idea about the frequency and time I spend on POV-Ray,
> including reading and commenting on posts. I mentioned that I have a
> life in the Real World, as you have too I am sure, and that takes
> absolute priority. Well, let me tell you that during each 24 hours I
> spend maybe two hour *maximum* to POV-Ray (including posts), divided
> over several snippets of time during the day. So, gimme a break, OK?

I sometimes get impatient for responses, especially when I'm working on
something and need ("want") some assistance to move past some difficulty and
reach a solution or workaround.  But that's not really the case here.
I'm calling "rabid instability".  Maybe he's taken up eating paint.

I have work, home, child, meals, shopping, laundry, garden, relationships,
neighbors, favors, friends, community involvement, and plenty of other things
that take me away from making any "meaningful progress" on any number of _hobby_
projects, let alone starting any new ones.  And my mechanism of making a "to-do
list" is starting a project so that it's physically there to remind me of it.

> All right. Enough about this. I hope you understand if you read this,
> and let's close the matter definitively. If you want to answer, you are
> welcome indeed, but I consider the war axe to be buried from now on.

Toxic people get offended and will try to flip things around and in true Saul
Alinsky fashion, accuse YOU for holding a grudge.  "Nah, little buddy.  That's
called a boundary."

I've been through all of this in a very personal, very real, very consequential
manner.  So I can see what's going on instantly, with pretty good clarity.  And
I know how to follow the breadcrumbs (vide infra).

"The emotional maturity of a typical narcissistic person is akin to a 5-year-old
child who pouts and refuses to play with a friend in the sandbox because the
friend wants to share the pail and shovel. The 5-year-old refuses to talk with
the friend and angrily storms off to play on the jungle gym with someone else."

https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/silent-treatment-a-narcissistic-persons-preferred-weapon-0602145

view-source:https://

Post a reply to this message

Op 18-4-2021 om 14:58 schreef Bald Eagle:
Thank you Bill, I do really appreciate indeed your comments and I am 
sadly aware of your own experience of this. The thought passed through 
my mind too. However, I wanted to give Yve what in French is called "Le 

own conviction, whatever he may make of it.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

hi,

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Op 18-4-2021 om 14:58 schreef Bald Eagle:
> Thank you Bill, I do really appreciate indeed your comments ...
> my mind too. However, I wanted to give Yve what in French is called "Le

umlauts + accents etc (currently) cause hiccups.


> own conviction, whatever he may make of it.

only two things to .. observe -- why "Yve"?  some Freudian thing?  :-)  concur
with BE, "ingrown toenails", likely.  not your problem.


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Op 18-4-2021 om 14:58 schreef Bald Eagle:
> Thank you Bill, I do really appreciate indeed your comments and I am
> sadly aware of your own experience of this. The thought passed through
> my mind too. However, I wanted to give Yve what in French is called "Le
>
> own conviction, whatever he may make of it.
>
> --
> Thomas

(I'm guessing something got omitted in there, but I understand where you're
going)

Indeed.  Now, we don't really need to "be fair" or give Ive/Yve a fair hearing -
because he can post [virtually] anything he wants here, any time he wants - and
there's damned little any but a select few can do to stop him.

Perhaps like so many before - artistically brilliant and enviously talented -
but psychologically....  wow.

I certainly give plenty of people a fair chance to present their views and
discuss them and what they believe their reasons for having them are.  Maybe we
agree, maybe we don't.   Sometimes we leave it at that, sometimes it begins a
long and continuing conversation that can last years.

But I'm not getting any younger, and I've learned some hard and painful lessons
from people who have quite frankly surprised me by their sudden and inexplicable
U-turns in thought/belief/behaviour.   So I just add them to the list of people
who are lost, too far gone, or too dangerously damaged for me to consider it
worthwhile bothering with.

As you say, I sadly got put through the wringer, but: I _learned_ a lot - both
about other people and myself, had my eyes opened, my illusions dispelled, and
after 10 years am doing well enough.  Although it no longer hurts, it's the pain
of the burn that keeps the child from grasping the hot handle of the pan on the
stove again.
Having instructed college chemistry, I did my due diligence and asked of the
students on the first day of lab, "Before you go and just thoughtlessly pick up
a beaker - what's the difference in appearance between cold glass and hot
glass?"
<silence>
"There isn't any."

I mean, I'm generally a top-of-the-Nolan-chart Libertarian who will genuinely
defend people's God-given Rights to say, or do, all manner of things.  But I
always admonish them with a reminder that "with great power comes great
responsibility" - and freedom and liberty are the fonts of personal power.  So
just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD.  Just because I'm
not going to stop you, doesn't mean that it isn't still a bad idea, or that I
won't try to dissuade you.  It also doesn't mean that after you do it, I won't
judge you for it, lay the blame and responsibility at your feet, or think that
it's a swell idea to continue my association with you.  I may, at some future
time, even realize and regret that I may have played some part and bore some
responsibility as well.   Stuff happens.  You can either get all hung up on it -
or move past it, grow, mature, and hopefully do better next time.


You were making an honest and wholly innocent effort to freely give of your
time, experience, and expertise to breathe new life into a set of procedural
textures that are decades old - and he decided to pop in out of nowhere,
snarling like a rabid dog, hurling blanket accusations and baseless attributions
of motive, intent, and willful negligence, and then just as abruptly stormed
out.

So, based on past similar behaviour and a peek under the the facade across the
interwebs, I'm making the call that there's a whole lot going on in that can of
worms, such that I don't see any value in getting drawn into it, and [caveat]
depending on the specific details of location, proximity and resources, one can
never really tell what any given individual is apt to do.  As an American, I was
surprised to find that Norway placed top of the list in 2011.  Maybe the
pressure cooker in TX has just been building up to bursting for the last decade.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJKJM36lMTE

Now, if I'm wrong or there's some underlying heap of stuff but everything gets
aired out and fixed up - fine.  I can be wrong.  I'm wrong a lot.  I prefer to
be "right", and that's why I spend such an inordinate amount of time learning,
and fixing things, and helping other to improve.


So, if people want to be decent and civilized, so be it.
If they want to be an epithet, that's their choice as well.

But at this point, regardless of whether or not it's "their bat and their ball,"
they can go home if they want to.  It's up to them.

Post a reply to this message

Op 18/04/2021 om 18:23 schreef jr:
> hi,
> 
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> Op 18-4-2021 om 14:58 schreef Bald Eagle:
>> Thank you Bill, I do really appreciate indeed your comments ...
>> my mind too. However, I wanted to give Yve what in French is called "Le
> 
> umlauts + accents etc (currently) cause hiccups.

Oops! I had not noticed that, sorry. I mentioned "the benefit of the 
doubt" there.

> 
> 
>> own conviction, whatever he may make of it.
> 
> only two things to .. observe -- why "Yve"?  some Freudian thing?  :-)  concur
> with BE, "ingrown toenails", likely.  not your problem.
> 
> 
> regards, jr.
> 

Right! Freudian, no doubt ;-) I have no idea why I mis-typed....

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Op 18/04/2021 om 19:13 schreef Bald Eagle:
> (I'm guessing something got omitted in there, but I understand where you're
> going)

My fault, sorry. I talked about "benefit of the doubt"

> 
> Indeed.  Now, we don't really need to "be fair" or give Ive/Yve a fair hearing -
> because he can post [virtually] anything he wants here, any time he wants - and
> there's damned little any but a select few can do to stop him.
> 
> [snip]
Again, thanks indeed for your extensive comments. I aappreciate them. I 
have not had too many experiences like this or like what you have been 
up against, and in general I /thought/ I was ready for them, but of 
course it hurts. I am interested in people and why they do or say what 
they do or say. We are social beings aren't we, but the internet is 
something very different indeed and a place where I go reluctantly, with 
the exception of a very few like these ng's.

Well, new lesson learned.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message