 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
// uncommenting last cylinder makes
// other two "disappear"
// latest 3.6 and latest 3.5
// WinXP Intel 3gig
camera {
orthographic
location <0,0,-1>
location <0,0,-.1>
up 1*y
right 4/3*x
}
background { rgb 1 }
cylinder { -x, x, .1 pigment { rgb 0 } }
cylinder { -y, y, .1 pigment { rgb 0 } }
//cylinder { 0, 1, .1 }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
strange...
does the same on my PC, unless I remove the "orthographic" or if I move the
camera to at least <0,0,-0.9>
...don't nderstand...
42b18c25@news.povray.org...
> // uncommenting last cylinder makes
> // other two "disappear"
> // latest 3.6 and latest 3.5
> // WinXP Intel 3gig
>
> camera {
> orthographic
> location <0,0,-1>
> location <0,0,-.1>
> up 1*y
> right 4/3*x
> }
>
> background { rgb 1 }
>
> cylinder { -x, x, .1 pigment { rgb 0 } }
> cylinder { -y, y, .1 pigment { rgb 0 } }
> //cylinder { 0, 1, .1 }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"bancquart.sebastien" <ban### [at] wanadoo fr> wrote in message
news:42b19ec3@news.povray.org...
> does the same on my PC, unless I remove the "orthographic" or if I move
> the camera to at least <0,0,-0.9>
Right. It was known that placing an orthographic camera too close can cause
vanishing or incorrectly rendered objects.
I checked this in the current beta of v3.7 and found it is okay, with an
exception. That being, the camera at -0.1*z is at the surfaces of the two
crossing cylinders and it renders with a missing strip along the centers of
them. If moving it inward to -0.09*z or outward to -0.11 it renders
correctly, even with the added diagonal pigmentless cylinder.
Bob Hughes
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> // uncommenting last cylinder makes
> // other two "disappear"
> // latest 3.6 and latest 3.5
> // WinXP Intel 3gig
>
> camera {
> orthographic
> location <0,0,-1>
> location <0,0,-.1>
> up 1*y
> right 4/3*x
> }
>
> background { rgb 1 }
>
> cylinder { -x, x, .1 pigment { rgb 0 } }
> cylinder { -y, y, .1 pigment { rgb 0 } }
> //cylinder { 0, 1, .1 }
I know this sounds kind of silly, but, could it be that the camera is
inside the third cylinder?
bancquart's post made me think of this.
--
~Mike
Things! Billions of them!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
>
I changed the direction of the third cylinder (odd, now *none* are
visible with the third un-commented). I backed up the camera. I added a
pigment to the third cylinder. ... none of these make any difference.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wasn't it Shay who wrote:
>// uncommenting last cylinder makes
>// other two "disappear"
It looks like some sort of vista buffer effect.
If you switch off vista buffers (-UV in the command line) then all the
cylinders reappear.
The default bounding threshold is 3. If you increase the bounding
threshold (+MB4 in the command line) to be greater than the number of
objects then all the cylinders reappear. Vista buffers can't happen
without bounding. That explains why introducing a third object provokes
the effect.
It seems that when POV calculates the vista buffers for the two
cylinders, it considers them to be out of sight, but when it tries to
render them without vista buffers, it considers them to be in sight.
The fact that the min_extent and max_extent of the cylinders is
calculated correctly, and the fact that the scene renders correctly with
bounding but without vistas, suggests to me that there's something odd
with the vista calculations.
--
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
