As an exercise, I'm updating some version 1.0 code I found on the web to
be version 3.1g compliant.  It would help me a lot if someone could
point me towards the V1 documentation, so that I can look up what the
original author was doing with some of the more cryptic statements.

Thanks in advance.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 09:39:59 -0700, Dawn McKnight <blu### [at] maccom> wrote:
> As an exercise, I'm updating some version 1.0 code I found on the web to
> be version 3.1g compliant.  It would help me a lot if someone could
> point me towards the V1 documentation, so that I can look up what the
> original author was doing with some of the more cryptic statements.

Could you point what source you are using? I never saw source for V. 1 I'm very
interested in backward compatibility. Have you tried this source with something
like #version 1; at begining of file and parsing with 3.1 or 3.5 beta? There are
some discussions from time to time how such thing works. It could be nice
example of wrong/good backward compatibility.

ABX

Post a reply to this message

> Could you point what source you are using?

I'm using Ville Saari's 'Big E' code for the refit USS Enterprise, as amended (and
it doesn't seem much amended) by 'J.L.' in '99.  You can find the source if you go
to p.binary.images, and do a search for 'Enterprise'.  It was posted on 02/23/99.

> Have you tried this source with something like #version 1; at begining of file
> and parsing with 3.1 or 3.5 beta?

I have not.  As I said in my earlier message, this is an excercise for me in
looking at code and figuring out what it means, and how to express it in current
code.  Being able to compile it using back compatability would be nice, but misses
the point of what I'm trying to do.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 09:54:55 -0700, Dawn McKnight <blu### [at] maccom> wrote:
> > Could you point what source you are using?
>
> I'm using Ville Saari's 'Big E' code for the refit USS Enterprise, as amended (and
> it doesn't seem much amended) by 'J.L.' in '99.  You can find the source if you go
> to p.binary.images, and do a search for 'Enterprise'.  It was posted on 02/23/99.

Thank you. Short way to this is
http://news.povray.org/36d2ac63.0%40news.povray.org

> > Have you tried this source with something like #version 1; at begining of file
> > and parsing with 3.1 or 3.5 beta?
>
> I have not.  As I said in my earlier message, this is an excercise for me in
> looking at code and figuring out what it means, and how to express it in current
> code.  Being able to compile it using back compatability would be nice, but misses
> the point of what I'm trying to do.

I understand your intentions. I was only interested where it is.

Comparing original image posted in pointed message with something what I have
22% of started rendering (under 3.5 beta) it looks very similiar. Point of view
seems different but I'm not sure what it was in posted image. Only change I had
to made was #version 1; in main file and #version temporary switch to include
"colors.inc". Works fine.

ABX

Post a reply to this message

Wasn't it Dawn McKnight who wrote:
>As an exercise, I'm updating some version 1.0 code I found on the web to
>be version 3.1g compliant.  It would help me a lot if someone could
>point me towards the V1 documentation, so that I can look up what the
>original author was doing with some of the more cryptic statements.

I can e-mail you a copy if you want.

-- 
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure

Post a reply to this message

Mike Williams wrote:

> I can e-mail you a copy if you want.

Thank you, Mike, that would be splendid.

Post a reply to this message

Mike Williams wrote:
> I can e-mail you a copy if you want.

Could you send me a copy too? Email address in sig; cheers mate!
 
> --
> Mike Williams
> Gentleman of Leisure
   ^^ sounds like my kinda job ;)

-- 
signature{
  "Grey Knight" contact{ email "gre### [at] yahoocom" }
  site_of_week{ url "http://digilander.iol.it/jrgpov" }
}

Post a reply to this message