 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mike Williams" <nos### [at] econym demoncouk> schreef in bericht
news:$AGs$AAH+3YD### [at] econymdemoncouk...
>
> That was the first thing I tried when Bill posted the example scene.
> It's easy to do, just reduce all those numbers by a factor of 1000 or
> 100000. But the result stays exactly the same in this case.
>
> It look's like it's not the absolute size of the values that causes the
> effect in this particular case, but the loss of precision.
>
> --
Yes, David and Mike, I was afraid that would not help, and came to the same
conclusion before even trying....
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
... and so we are condemned to fly over the Ringworld and never be able to
land! <sniff> :-)
Indeed, like Mike Williams wrote, one can plug the hole. I think that for
any close up view, a combination of the larger view with a detailed scene is
needed. The boundaries would be hardly visible (with some care).
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot wrote:
> ... and so we are condemned to fly over the Ringworld and never be able to
> land! <sniff> :-)
>
> Indeed, like Mike Williams wrote, one can plug the hole. I think that for
> any close up view, a combination of the larger view with a detailed scene is
> needed. The boundaries would be hardly visible (with some care).
>
> Thomas
>
I changed the value of EPSILON and recompiled. It doesn't have any
effect. I'll try playing with it a bit to see what I can discover.
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot wrote:
> ... and so we are condemned to fly over the Ringworld and never be able to
> land! <sniff> :-)
>
> Indeed, like Mike Williams wrote, one can plug the hole. I think that for
> any close up view, a combination of the larger view with a detailed scene is
> needed. The boundaries would be hardly visible (with some care).
>
> Thomas
>
>
Ok, I got it. The problem is in the source file cones.cpp. It declares
a constant called Cone_Tolerance to be 1.0e-6. When I change this to
1.0e-9, I can move the camera down to 0.1 without problems. I see the
same artifacts at 0.01. I may be able to reduce it further.
I can provide an unofficial Windows executable to anyone who wants to
try it.
David Buck
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Whoops, did it again. Posted something interesting on a Friday, didn't touch
the net until Monday and missed it all. :)
I suspected it would be something like that as long ago as 2000, when I
originally built a Ringworld. I never noticed these particular artifacts
because I never put the camera close to the ground - I was 2000 miles above
the ring, looking along the rim mountains. I had a lot of difficulty with
the textures and object positions that I couldn't blame on stupidity, and
ended up just making do.
David Buck <dav### [at] simberoncom> wrote:
> I can provide an unofficial Windows executable to anyone who wants to
> try it.
That'd be brilliant - I've been making Fist-Of-God mountain this weekend and
the clouds are definitely too high up! I was going to compensate by making
the mountain 20x bigger, but it would be subtly wrong.
By email or weblink? Either's good for me.
I'm kind of surprised that nobody's ever noticed this issue before...
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Pragnell wrote:
> David Buck <dav### [at] simberoncom> wrote:
>
>>I can provide an unofficial Windows executable to anyone who wants to
>>try it.
>
> That'd be brilliant - I've been making Fist-Of-God mountain this weekend and
> the clouds are definitely too high up! I was going to compensate by making
> the mountain 20x bigger, but it would be subtly wrong.
>
> By email or weblink? Either's good for me.
>
> I'm kind of surprised that nobody's ever noticed this issue before...
>
> Bill
>
You can get it from the following link:
http://www.simberon.com/povringworld.zip
Unzip the file and drop it into the bin directory of the POV-Ray
directory in Program Files. Be sure to backup the old version already
in that directory. This version is based on 3.6.0.
Let me know if this works for you.
David Buck
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I downloaded the file OK, but the program won't run. Instead, it whinges
thusly: "Editor DLL initialisation failed [LoadLibrary failed, code is
00000485]".
I've tried this in 3.5 and 3.6.1. I can't find a windows version of 3.6.0
anywhere (typical!). I suppose I could always call it from a command
prompt, but I'm not immediately sure how to do this...
Any advice? I appear to need a 3.6.0 release, if such a thing exists.
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Pragnell wrote:
> I downloaded the file OK, but the program won't run. Instead, it whinges
> thusly: "Editor DLL initialisation failed [LoadLibrary failed, code is
> 00000485]".
>
> I've tried this in 3.5 and 3.6.1. I can't find a windows version of 3.6.0
> anywhere (typical!). I suppose I could always call it from a command
> prompt, but I'm not immediately sure how to do this...
>
> Any advice? I appear to need a 3.6.0 release, if such a thing exists.
>
> Bill
>
The 3.6.0 source code is the latest I can access, so I can't make the
change on 3.6.1. I've asked Chris Cason to make the change in the
latest stream so it will appear in the 3.7 betas. He'll have to decide
whether or not to make the change.
David Buck
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Buck <dav### [at] simberoncom> wrote:
> The 3.6.0 source code is the latest I can access, so I can't make the
> change on 3.6.1. I've asked Chris Cason to make the change in the
> latest stream so it will appear in the 3.7 betas. He'll have to decide
> whether or not to make the change.
Everything's alright! I found a copy of 3.6.0 on one of the mirror sites,
plugged in the new pvengine, fired it up and it works a treat. I'll post
some results tomorrow (when it's finished rendering!).
It seems to be running more slowly that the previous version - is there a
time cost for this alteration or is it something I've done? If there's a
demand for it maybe the tolerance could go into global_settings or
something...
Thanks anyway David! That's end-user support above and beyond the call of
duty, I'd say. Microsoft, take note... :)
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Pragnell wrote:
> David Buck <dav### [at] simberoncom> wrote:
>
>>The 3.6.0 source code is the latest I can access, so I can't make the
>>change on 3.6.1. I've asked Chris Cason to make the change in the
>>latest stream so it will appear in the 3.7 betas. He'll have to decide
>>whether or not to make the change.
>
>
> Everything's alright! I found a copy of 3.6.0 on one of the mirror sites,
> plugged in the new pvengine, fired it up and it works a treat. I'll post
> some results tomorrow (when it's finished rendering!).
>
> It seems to be running more slowly that the previous version - is there a
> time cost for this alteration or is it something I've done? If there's a
> demand for it maybe the tolerance could go into global_settings or
> something...
>
> Thanks anyway David! That's end-user support above and beyond the call of
> duty, I'd say. Microsoft, take note... :)
>
> Bill
Well, I'm not part of the POV-Ray development team any more and haven't
been for over 12 years, so it's not really end-user support - consider
it peer-to-peer support. In any event, it's my pleasure. I always like
seeing creative scenes that people make with POV-Ray and if I can do
some small amount of work to help them, I'm happy. I look forward to
seeing your pictures.
David Buck
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
