I've just stumbled upon the title "release candidate" for
the new beta.

If this is just something like "Look guys, we're beginning
to wrap it all up, but expect at least 9 more candidates..."
then its all fine with me.

If this is like "About 2 more trial versions, and that's what ya
get...",
then I'm getting a little frustrated.

Using my Particle-System and using my mesh-macros
I've stumbled upon a problem with transparent/filtering
textures, in such a way, that a transparent object is
simply averaged with the background, or simply
vanishes.

I've got two responses to that from the community, one
from Peter Popov who actually checked the example I
submitted to the beta-binaries and confirmed the bug,

problem might have to do with degenerate triangles, though
that doesn't seem to be the case (since it happens with
blobs and other POV-primitives).

I'm not pointing at the POV-Team like "It's all your fault!", I'm
just expressing my frustration which this "release candidate" has
awakened in me. Anyone care to explain what it actually is
meant to mean?

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

Post a reply to this message

I also checked the "release candidate" for the bugs
I've found.

1. The vanishing-objects still appear on the Gerbera-Mesh, and there's
 no transparency involved (no filter either)!
2. The vanish-ghost-effect I've found using my Particle-System (example
images found in binaries.images) still appear
3. The usage of warp-rotate-warp in a texture still occurs in the
chess-scene in which I found it.

So it's not like I'm being frustrated by nothing.


--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 17:21:53 +0200, Tim Nikias <tim### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> So it's not like I'm being frustrated by nothing.

Just compare last known bugs list with your list (consider date release)
and/or ask/wait for new one.

ABX

Post a reply to this message

In article <3CBAF011.45268F13@gmx.de> , Tim Nikias <tim### [at] gmxde>  wrote:

> 1. The vanishing-objects still appear on the Gerbera-Mesh, and there's
>  no transparency involved (no filter either)!
> 2. The vanish-ghost-effect I've found using my Particle-System (example
> images found in binaries.images) still appear

You never provided a minimal scene nor have there been any proper
confirmations in either of these two threads.  Obviously only reproducible
bugs will be fixed.

It also helps to post beta bug reports and scenes in the correct group and not
let those trying to reproduce them search through various groups to find your
sample scenes.

    Thorsten

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

I've posted the Gerbera-Scene in povray.beta-test.binaries
on the first of April. I know its not a "minimal scene", the
problem is, this bug occurs on me only in very complex
scenes using lots of macros and objects. It happens with
my Particle-System and thats way more code than the
Gerbera-Scene.

There is one confirmation from Peter Popov, who simply
traced the provided scene. I take it he read the bug-description
I gave and checked using with and without focal-blur, which
made the bug visible in that scene.

So at least its not something just occuring on my computer.

And, regarding the last part of "correct groups": I always state the
group where I've posted, may it be binaries.images, beta-test.binaries
or whereever.

I'll look at the gerbera-scene and try to minimise it.

Thorsten Froehlich wrote:

> You never provided a minimal scene nor have there been any proper
> confirmations in either of these two threads.  Obviously only reproducible
> bugs will be fixed.
>
> It also helps to post beta bug reports and scenes in the correct group and not
> let those trying to reproduce them search through various groups to find your
> sample scenes.
>
>     Thorsten

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

Post a reply to this message

In article <3CBAEE0B.969FDF03@gmx.de> , Tim Nikias <tim### [at] gmxde>  wrote:

> I've just stumbled upon the title "release candidate" for
> the new beta.
>
> If this is just something like "Look guys, we're beginning
> to wrap it all up, but expect at least 9 more candidates..."
> then its all fine with me.
>
> If this is like "About 2 more trial versions, and that's what ya
> get...", then I'm getting a little frustrated.

In what way is the number of beta versions related to the number of bugs
fixed? :-)


I am sure there won't be too many more beta versions and the beta period will
surely not run for another two month.  It should also be pointed out that not
all reported and confirmed bugs of POV-Ray 3.5 can be fixed in POV-Ray 3.5
considering the extend of a change to fix such a bug compared to the impact
and the duration of time it has not been a major problem.  these are some of
the aspects that are considered in the priority of bugs that will be fixed and
those that will unlikely be fixed.

This implies bugs that have existed for many years but only been reported for
3.5 the first time are for example less likely to be fixed.  Further, the
various precision problems inherited from POV-Ray 1.x and 2.x and 3.x and
which would require a complete new implementation of the feature (i.e. the
various blob and hfield precision problems) are unlikely to be fixed in
POV-Ray 3.5 and possible can never be fixed unless computer hardware changes
fundamentally.

One indication of the bugs that are most likely not going to be fixed before a
final release of POV-Ray 3.5 are already indicated in "Known bugs 1 Apr 2002
(beta15)" in the best test group in the "suspended" section of that list.
other bugs that won't be fixed obviously included those nobody has bothered to
provide a small scene to reproduce the problem or confirmed in the first
place.  At the time of release those will simply be "dropped".

Of course, I understand it is frustrating if your pet bug is on the suspended
list of has not been confirmed properly so far, but I hope you also understand
and share the desire to not being forced to wait for release for a very long
time until every such report has been analyzed, which could just mean that
after weeks of searching it simply cannot be reproduced.

You should also keep in mind that even at this stage POV-Ray 3.5 fixes
numerous bugs that exist in POV-Ray 3.1 and earlier, not even to mention the
various unofficial patches.  POV-Ray 3.5 also includes many new features in a
very stable condition.  In summary, I am sure you agree that POV-Ray 3.5 is a
comprehensive improvement upon POV-Ray 3.1 and various patches it includes.

And you should of course keep in mind that a release in the foreseeable future
also has certain benefits as far as fixing some of the esoteric bugs is
concerned.  If someone in the community has sufficient interest and ability to
fix it (as the source code will of course be available shortly after the final
release) and submits that fix to the POV-Team there is of course no reason why
in half a year or so there can't be a bug fix release of POV-Ray 3.5.


Please note that all the above is my own opinion and I am not speaking for the
POV-Team as a whole, only as one member.  However, I am fairly sure other team
members have similar opinions or at least do not strongly disagree with what I
outlined above.

Also, please note that while most words have been chosen carefully, it is very
possible some parts of what I outline above are not as clear as they could or
should be.  You should not jump to any conclusions based on my words but
instead consider them as a broad and imprecise explanation only! In particular
I don't want to be told in a month or two that I said this or that in this
post.  I know as little about the future as you do ;-)


    Thorsten


____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich
e-mail: mac### [at] povrayorg

I am a member of the POV-Ray Team.
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

As Thorsten pointed out, it is not possible to fix all bugs.
We can't go on issuing betas forever. With a program as complex
as POV-Ray, it is inevitable that there will always be some
bugs. What our intention is, is to produce a release version
that is stable, usable, and free of most (if not all) known
-major- bugs. Minor bugs will be there, it's a fact of life.

We within the team have been working on this release for more
than two years and we feel that it's close to the point where
we can release it to the public as non-beta software.

And, as Thorsten also pointed out, once the source is released
we expect that the user community will fix several of the bugs
that we ourselves did not get the chance to do. It is quite
likely that we will release bugfix versions of 3.5 fairly
shortly after the initial release.

-- Chris

Post a reply to this message

That was very insight- and helpful.

I do agree that the new POV 3.5 is WAAAAAY better
than 3.1g, and I'm also used to the idea that some bugs
might not be fixable. We have that Microsoft Library
Issue that popped up somewhere using pow(), and some
precision problems. We have that heightfield-normal stuff
and I don't know what else.

But, as requested by your other post (which didn't sound
that comforting, and thus the harsh reply), I created a
"minimum scene" in which I have put my "pet bug" (which
I think is a very nice name for such a terrible thing...) and
made it public in:
povray.beta-test.binaries
entitled as
"Vanish/Ghost/Killer bug"

I traced the problem down to following line:
vnormalize(<0,0,0>)

Using it for translation seems to create that scene-breaking
effect, though POV doesn't issue and problem in dividing
a vector by 0 (I just assume that its done that way:
"vector divided_by vector_length", thats the mathematical
way, right?). Perhaps thats another Microsoft Library thingy?

In that case, I will be content if the docs state something
like "DON'T USE VNORMALIZE WITH <0,0,0>",
and, additionaly, don't forget the "Tim Wenclawiak found it..."

After all, I think it would be nice if every bug-hunter,
which has found an unfixable bug, would be mentioned somewhere,
in some tiny section. We all want to be a part of this, you know...

;-)

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

Post a reply to this message

You're right, of course, as Thorsten was.

And though its perhaps to a certain degree my
fault, that "my" bug hasn't been looked at closer,
I would have thought that the community around here
would have helped as well. Thats what caused most
of my frustration, that dozens of people frequently
visit the beta-test groups, and comment, and do this
and that, but kept quiet while I was asking something
I find important, because it breaks an entire scene, not
only the object itself, or "some" shadows or whatever.
I'm not a natural bug-hunter, but from what
I've experienced in that group, some have the "knack"
to track the bug, even in larger scenes.

I just didn't get much help, thats what frustrated me,
not the POV-Team, which has a lot to do to not
only know the bug, but find the actual source in the
code and fix it - no easy task, I know from my own
programming experience.

Chris Cason wrote:

> As Thorsten pointed out, it is not possible to fix all bugs.
> We can't go on issuing betas forever. With a program as complex
> as POV-Ray, it is inevitable that there will always be some
> bugs. What our intention is, is to produce a release version
> that is stable, usable, and free of most (if not all) known
> -major- bugs. Minor bugs will be there, it's a fact of life.
>
> We within the team have been working on this release for more
> than two years and we feel that it's close to the point where
> we can release it to the public as non-beta software.
>
> And, as Thorsten also pointed out, once the source is released
> we expect that the user community will fix several of the bugs
> that we ourselves did not get the chance to do. It is quite
> likely that we will release bugfix versions of 3.5 fairly
> shortly after the initial release.
>
> -- Chris

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

Post a reply to this message

Tim Nikias wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> In that case, I will be content if the docs state something
> like "DON'T USE VNORMALIZE WITH <0,0,0>",

Quoting from 6.1.4.6:

"vnormalize(<0,0,0>) will not give a usefull result."
                                           ^
        Ingo, could you fix that one? -----/


Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,                 
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/  
Last updated 14 Apr. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message