Hi(gh)!

Resuming my "Whatmough" planet project from 2011, I would like to know 
if is possible to create realistic mountain ranges (on a continental 
scale) with believable drainage patterns using procedural functions. I 
tried ridged_mf(), but got nothing even remotely resembling this.

Another (but very time-consuming) approach would be "painting" 
topography manually, using 16-bit grayscale PNG heightfields. Are there 
any heightfield editors for this bit depth around?

See you in Khyberspace!

Yadgar

Post a reply to this message

=?UTF-8?Q?J=c3=b6rg_=22Yadgar=22_Bleimann?= <yaz### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> Hi(gh)!
>
> Resuming my "Whatmough" planet project from 2011, I would like to know
> if is possible to create realistic mountain ranges (on a continental
> scale) with believable drainage patterns using procedural functions. I
> tried ridged_mf(), but got nothing even remotely resembling this.
>
> Another (but very time-consuming) approach would be "painting"
> topography manually, using 16-bit grayscale PNG heightfields. Are there
> any heightfield editors for this bit depth around?
>
> See you in Khyberspace!
>
> Yadgar

As a last resort:
I have 3 programs at my site that helps make height fields and place objects on
them. They where All wrote for my old Win98, but they run on my new WinXP.
The first program lets you use contour lines to make a height field image in
tga(8bit) or ppm(16bit). The next one lets you rough up images made by the
first.
The last one Lets you place things on a height field made by using the Image
from the first two.
I'm here at https://leroyspovstuff.yolasite.com/

Have Fun!

Post a reply to this message

On 27-12-2017 13:08, Jörg "Yadgar" Bleimann wrote:
> Hi(gh)!
> 
> Resuming my "Whatmough" planet project from 2011, I would like to know 
> if is possible to create realistic mountain ranges (on a continental 
> scale) with believable drainage patterns using procedural functions. I 
> tried ridged_mf(), but got nothing even remotely resembling this.
> 
> Another (but very time-consuming) approach would be "painting" 
> topography manually, using 16-bit grayscale PNG heightfields. Are there 
> any heightfield editors for this bit depth around?
> 
> See you in Khyberspace!
> 
> Yadgar

A long time dream indeed. Third party programs approach that dream; 
alas, the better ones are not free.

I own GeoControl, which has been succeeded by World Creator from the 
same makers. As far as I know, it is one of the best programs for a 
reasonable price. http://www.bitethebytes.net/bitethebytes/

L3DT is another one - which I never tried - but with a free version. 
http://www.bundysoft.com/L3DT/downloads/standard.php

And then there are:
http://planetgenesis.sourceforge.net/ (free)
http://www.daylongraphics.com/ (not free)
http://www.cyberfunks.de/page/terrabrush/index.htm (free)
http://planetside.co.uk/ (free)
http://www.fracterra.com/wilbur.html (free)
http://www.world-machine.com/index.php (not free)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 27.12.2017 um 21:52 schrieb Leroy:

> As a last resort:
> I have 3 programs at my site that helps make height fields and place objects on
> them. They where All wrote for my old Win98, but they run on my new WinXP.

"new WinXP"???

Ouch.

Post a reply to this message

On 28/12/2017 09:19, clipka wrote:
> Am 27.12.2017 um 21:52 schrieb Leroy:
> 
>> As a last resort:
>> I have 3 programs at my site that helps make height fields and place objects on
>> them. They where All wrote for my old Win98, but they run on my new WinXP.
> 
> "new WinXP"???
> 
> Ouch.
> 

Some people keep things that work.
Going from Leroy's site. It was new in 2006

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Hi(gh)!

Am 27.12.2017 um 21:52 schrieb Leroy:

> As a last resort:
> I have 3 programs at my site that helps make height fields and place objects on
> them. They where All wrote for my old Win98, but they run on my new WinXP.
> The first program lets you use contour lines to make a height field image in
> tga(8bit) or ppm(16bit). The next one lets you rough up images made by the
> first.
> The last one Lets you place things on a height field made by using the Image
> from the first two.
> I'm here at https://leroyspovstuff.yolasite.com/

Not really useful, at least not in its current development stage - no 
zoom view and therefore no chance to exactly place the cursor. Perhaps 
it is because I used Windows 7 rather than XP, I don't know...

The fine editor (the second program) is not even downloadable at all!

Nevertheless, thanks for your tip!

See you in Khyberspace!

Yadgar

Post a reply to this message

Am 27.12.2017 um 13:08 schrieb Jörg "Yadgar" Bleimann:
> Hi(gh)!
> 
> Resuming my "Whatmough" planet project from 2011, I would like to know 
> if is possible to create realistic mountain ranges (on a continental 
> scale) with believable drainage patterns using procedural functions. I 
> tried ridged_mf(), but got nothing even remotely resembling this.
> 
> Another (but very time-consuming) approach would be "painting" 
> topography manually, using 16-bit grayscale PNG heightfields. Are there 
> any heightfield editors for this bit depth around?

I forgot to mention that I use either Windows XP Professional (32-bit), 
Windows 7 64-bit Professional or Debian Linux 8.9, so that software 
exclusively written for Windows 8 or newer unfortunately would be of no 
use to me.

See you in Khyberspace!

Yadgar

Post a reply to this message

Hi(gh)!

Am 28.12.2017 um 08:55 schrieb Thomas de Groot:

> A long time dream indeed. Third party programs approach that dream; 
> alas, the better ones are not free.
> 
> I own GeoControl, which has been succeeded by World Creator from the 
> same makers. As far as I know, it is one of the best programs for a 
> reasonable price. http://www.bitethebytes.net/bitethebytes/

Does World Creator export to 16-bit PNG as used with POV-Ray? As I need 
to build VERY large heightfields (to be wrapped around spheres as meshes 
afterwards), I would need the Professional Edition - which at 289$, at 
least for the moment, is out of reach for me.

> 
> L3DT is another one - which I never tried - but with a free version. 
> http://www.bundysoft.com/L3DT/downloads/standard.php

Sounds very promising, but again only with the Professional version - 
which, on the other hand, at 34.95$ for the "Indie" license is 
affordable to me. But I never ordered anything from the US - there maybe 
a couple of pitfalls... I remember having ordered two organ player's 
textbooks from Switzerland (a non-euro country), which were priced at 5 
SFR each one (about 7 euros back then), but including shipping and 
exchange fees, it ended up at a whopping 22 euros...

> 
> And then there are:
> http://planetgenesis.sourceforge.net/ (free)

I will give it a try... just downloaded it! The planet on the web page 
did not look very realistic (when it comes to height distribution)... 
but at least it exports explicitly to POV-Ray and uses 16-bit PNG 
grayscale images!

> http://www.daylongraphics.com/ (not free)

Also not too expensive... and it works with POV-Ray!

> http://www.cyberfunks.de/page/terrabrush/index.htm (free)

Perhaps also worth a try...

> http://planetside.co.uk/ (free)

Terragen! An old friend, which I used already back in 1999 and which in 
fact was the basis for my very first animations!

And the version 4 looks almost like a system usable for Khyberspace on 
its own... at least with its commercial sub-versions, which of course 
are exceptionally high-priced but probably worth it all!

But even the free version is VERY promising! I just downloaded it...

> http://www.fracterra.com/wilbur.html (free)

Amazing! Almost perfect... or purrfect, as an ailurophile like me would 
put it! I've not only downloaded it, I already started to play around 
with it! However, the POV-Ray 16-bit TGA export turned out to be faulty, 
but that's no big issue, as it also exports to 16-bit PNG!

> http://www.world-machine.com/index.php (not free)

I did not try this yet, as I probably will be occupied with Wilbur for 
the next weeks!

Thank you very, very much, Thomas!

See you in Khyberspace!

Yadgar

Post a reply to this message

On 12/28/2017 06:10 AM, Jörg 'Yadgar' Bleimann wrote:

> I forgot to mention that I use either Windows XP Professional (32-bit), 
> Windows 7 64-bit Professional or Debian Linux 8.9, 

I wondered if there were povers still using 32 bits.

--
dik

Post a reply to this message

On 28-12-2017 14:23, Jörg 'Yadgar' Bleimann wrote:
> Hi(gh)!
> 
> Am 28.12.2017 um 08:55 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> 
>> A long time dream indeed. Third party programs approach that dream; 
>> alas, the better ones are not free.
>>
>> I own GeoControl, which has been succeeded by World Creator from the 
>> same makers. As far as I know, it is one of the best programs for a 
>> reasonable price. http://www.bitethebytes.net/bitethebytes/
> 
> Does World Creator export to 16-bit PNG as used with POV-Ray? As I need 
> to build VERY large heightfields (to be wrapped around spheres as meshes 
> afterwards), I would need the Professional Edition - which at 289$, at 
> least for the moment, is out of reach for me.

I do not own World Creator, so I cannot answer that question. GeoControl 
(the ancient version that I have) does not but has a well-behaved tga 
export.

> 
>>
>> L3DT is another one - which I never tried - but with a free version. 
>> http://www.bundysoft.com/L3DT/downloads/standard.php
> 
> Sounds very promising, but again only with the Professional version - 
> which, on the other hand, at 34.95$ for the "Indie" license is 
> affordable to me. But I never ordered anything from the US - there maybe 
> a couple of pitfalls... I remember having ordered two organ player's 
> textbooks from Switzerland (a non-euro country), which were priced at 5 
> SFR each one (about 7 euros back then), but including shipping and 
> exchange fees, it ended up at a whopping 22 euros...

With a credit card or similar that should not be a problem, otherwise...

> 
>>
>> And then there are:
>> http://planetgenesis.sourceforge.net/ (free)
> 
> I will give it a try... just downloaded it! The planet on the web page 
> did not look very realistic (when it comes to height distribution)... 
> but at least it exports explicitly to POV-Ray and uses 16-bit PNG 
> grayscale images!
> 
>> http://www.daylongraphics.com/ (not free)
> 
> Also not too expensive... and it works with POV-Ray!
> 
>> http://www.cyberfunks.de/page/terrabrush/index.htm (free)
> 
> Perhaps also worth a try...
> 
>> http://planetside.co.uk/ (free)
> 
> Terragen! An old friend, which I used already back in 1999 and which in 
> fact was the basis for my very first animations!
> 
> And the version 4 looks almost like a system usable for Khyberspace on 
> its own... at least with its commercial sub-versions, which of course 
> are exceptionally high-priced but probably worth it all!
> 
> But even the free version is VERY promising! I just downloaded it...
> 
>> http://www.fracterra.com/wilbur.html (free)
> 
> Amazing! Almost perfect... or purrfect, as an ailurophile like me would 
> put it! I've not only downloaded it, I already started to play around 
> with it! However, the POV-Ray 16-bit TGA export turned out to be faulty, 
> but that's no big issue, as it also exports to 16-bit PNG!
> 
>> http://www.world-machine.com/index.php (not free)
> 
> I did not try this yet, as I probably will be occupied with Wilbur for 
> the next weeks!
> 
> Thank you very, very much, Thomas!

You are welcome Yadgar. Glad to be of help. I hope you will find what 
you want. If there is something fundamental that I have learned since I 
started modelling (with POV-Ray of course!) back in the nineties, it is 
that for each scale you often need a different tool/procedure. It is 
almost impossible to use the same output for a planetary view /and/ for 
a landscape. Both need different approaches.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Hi(gh)!

Am 29.12.2017 um 00:54 schrieb dick balaska:
> On 12/28/2017 06:10 AM, Jörg 'Yadgar' Bleimann wrote:
> 
>> I forgot to mention that I use either Windows XP Professional 
>> (32-bit), Windows 7 64-bit Professional or Debian Linux 8.9, 
> 
> I wondered if there were povers still using 32 bits.

Windows XP only on my slow ancient 512 MiB laptop...

See you in Khyberspace!

Yadgar

Post a reply to this message

Hi(gh)!

Am 29.12.2017 um 08:51 schrieb Thomas de Groot:

> You are welcome Yadgar. Glad to be of help. I hope you will find what 
> you want. If there is something fundamental that I have learned since I 
> started modelling (with POV-Ray of course!) back in the nineties, it is 
> that for each scale you often need a different tool/procedure. It is 
> almost impossible to use the same output for a planetary view /and/ for 
> a landscape. Both need different approaches.

Not necessarily... at least when it comes down to heightfields. Of 
course, for an Earth-sized planet with a circumference of about 40,000 
kms, a decent looking heightfield without needing vertical exaggeration 
should be at least 400,000 by 200,000 pixels, the larger the better - 
but this full size is mostly not needed, as it is only worthwile at 
"pedestrian views" - and then you need only a tiny fraction of the whole 
planetary surface. Which leads me to the next question: Does POV-Ray's 
eval_pigment() also handle 16-bit grayscale pngs correctly?

See you in Khyberspace!

Yadgar

Post a reply to this message

On 29-12-2017 9:42, Jörg 'Yadgar' Bleimann wrote:
> Hi(gh)!
> 
> Am 29.12.2017 um 08:51 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> 
>> You are welcome Yadgar. Glad to be of help. I hope you will find what 
>> you want. If there is something fundamental that I have learned since 
>> I started modelling (with POV-Ray of course!) back in the nineties, it 
>> is that for each scale you often need a different tool/procedure. It 
>> is almost impossible to use the same output for a planetary view /and/ 
>> for a landscape. Both need different approaches.
> 
> Not necessarily... at least when it comes down to heightfields. Of 
> course, for an Earth-sized planet with a circumference of about 40,000 
> kms, a decent looking heightfield without needing vertical exaggeration 
> should be at least 400,000 by 200,000 pixels, the larger the better - 
> but this full size is mostly not needed, as it is only worthwile at 
> "pedestrian views" - and then you need only a tiny fraction of the whole 
> planetary surface. Which leads me to the next question: Does POV-Ray's 
> eval_pigment() also handle 16-bit grayscale pngs correctly?
> 

I don't know about eval_pigment. Somebody else might be more knowledgeable.

I tend to disagree with you about those height_fields. A planetary 
height_field used for a 'pedestrian' view will show horrible jaggies 
imho. Or you will need insane resolution values if you are using functions.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 29.12.2017 um 09:42 schrieb Jörg 'Yadgar' Bleimann:

> Which leads me to the next question: Does POV-Ray's
> eval_pigment() also handle 16-bit grayscale pngs correctly?

Absolutely. Everything you can use in a pigment, eval_pigment() will
handle correctly - for technically feasible definitions of "correctly".

Beware however the gamma monster. When using images as terrain elevation
maps, you'll typically want linear values. Ideally, the generating
software should use linear encoding and set the `gAMA` chunk
accordingly, but not all software is that well-behaved. To be on the
safe side, specify "gamma 1" in the image map. (Unless the generating
software uses non-linear encoding.)

(When using images in genuine height fields or bump maps, "gamma 1" is
the default. But for eval_pigment() you'll need to load the image as a
pigment first, in which case POV-Ray defaults to whatever gamma is
indicated in the PNG file, or sRGB if the file doesn't contain gamma
information.)

Post a reply to this message

On 29/12/2017 08:42, Jörg 'Yadgar' Bleimann wrote:
> Hi(gh)!
> 
> Am 29.12.2017 um 08:51 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> 
>> You are welcome Yadgar. Glad to be of help. I hope you will find what 
>> you want. If there is something fundamental that I have learned since 
>> I started modelling (with POV-Ray of course!) back in the nineties, it 
>> is that for each scale you often need a different tool/procedure. It 
>> is almost impossible to use the same output for a planetary view /and/ 
>> for a landscape. Both need different approaches.
> 
> Not necessarily... at least when it comes down to heightfields. Of 
> course, for an Earth-sized planet with a circumference of about 40,000 
> kms, a decent looking heightfield without needing vertical exaggeration 
> should be at least 400,000 by 200,000 pixels, the larger the better - 
> but this full size is mostly not needed, as it is only worthwile at 
> "pedestrian views" - and then you need only a tiny fraction of the whole 
> planetary surface. Which leads me to the next question: Does POV-Ray's 
> eval_pigment() also handle 16-bit grayscale pngs correctly?
> 

I agree with Thomas. The difference in scales between domestic and 
geographical is too great for the resolution of heightfields.
But the link below might help. It is Gilles Tran's Spherical height field.

http://www.oyonale.com/modeles.php?lang=en&page=24


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> On 28/12/2017 09:19, clipka wrote:
> >
> > "new WinXP"???
> >
> > Ouch.
> >
>
> Some people keep things that work.
> Going from Leroy's site. It was new in 2006
>

I wish I still had mine. :-(  It was ... STABLE. And a workhorse. But the stupid
crummy power supply eventually fried the motherboard. (an Emachines computer,
BTW.)

Post a reply to this message

Hi(gh)!

Am 29.12.2017 um 16:42 schrieb clipka:
> 
> Absolutely. Everything you can use in a pigment, eval_pigment() will
> handle correctly - for technically feasible definitions of "correctly".

Obviously not, at least not with POV-Ray for Windows... I used a 16-bit 
PNG generated with Wilbur to be parsed to a spherical mesh2 with this 
script:

// beginning of code

#include "functions.inc"

#declare xx=1024;
#declare yy=512;
#declare minrad=22;
#declare maxrad=38;


#declare AsteroidRelief =
pigment
{
   image_map { tga "asteroid1.tga" }
}

#declare vertices=2+xx*(yy-2);

#fopen asteroid_mesh_inc "asteroid_mesh.inc" write
#write (asteroid_mesh_inc,
         "#declare asteroid_mesh =\n
         mesh2\n
         {\n
           vertex_vectors\n
           {\n",
             vertices,"\n",
             <0, -35.678431, 0>," // south pole \n") // number of 
vertices: 2+b*(a-2) [2+xx*(yy-2)]
#declare a=1;
#while (a<yy-1)
   #declare b=0;
   // #declare rdcum = 0;
   #while (b<xx)
     #declare redval=eval_pigment(AsteroidRelief, <(0.5+b)*(1/xx), 
(0.5+a)*(1/yy), 0>).red * (maxrad-minrad);
     #declare greenval=eval_pigment(AsteroidRelief, <(0.5+b)*(1/xx), 
(0.5+a)*(1/yy), 0>).green * ((maxrad-minrad)/255);
     #declare rd=minrad+redval+greenval;
     /* #if (a=1 | a=yy-2)
       #declare rdcum=rdcum+rd;
     #end */
     #write (asteroid_mesh_inc,
 
(rd*<sin(radians(b*(360/xx)))*cos(radians(-90+a*(180/(yy-2)))), 
sin(radians(-90+a*(180/(yy-2)))), 
cos(radians(b*(360/xx)))*cos(radians(-90+a*(180/(yy-2))))>)," // ",rd,"\n")
     #declare b=b+1;
   #end
   #declare a=a+1;
#end

#write (asteroid_mesh_inc, <0, 35.741176, 0>,"// north pole\n
                         }\n
                         face_indices\n
                         {\n",
                            xx*2+xx*2*(yy-3),"\n") // number of faces: 
b*2+b*2*(a-3) [xx*2+xx*2*(yy-3)]
#declare a=0;
#while (a<yy-1)
   #declare b=0;
   #while (b<xx)
     #switch (a)
       #case (0)
         #if (b < xx-1)
           #write (asteroid_mesh_inc, <0, a+1+b, a+1+mod(b+1,xx)>, "\n") 
// b faces, all sharing first vertex (#0)
         #else
           #write (asteroid_mesh_inc, <0, a+1+b, 1>, "\n" // last 
triangle connecting to first one
         #end
       #break
       #range (1, yy-3)
         #if (b < xx-1)
           #write (asteroid_mesh_inc, <1+(a-1)*xx+b, 
1+(a-1)*xx+mod(b+1,xx), 1+a*xx+b>,",",<1+a*xx+b, 1+a*xx+mod(b+1,xx), 
1+(a-1)*xx+mod(b+1,xx)>, "\n") // b*2*(a-3) faces
         #else
           #write (asteroid_mesh_inc, <1+(a-1)*xx+b, 1+(a-1)*xx, 
1+a*xx+b>,",",<1+a*xx+b, 1+(a-1)*xx, 1+a*xx>, "\n") // last pair of 
triangles in row connecting to first pair
         #end
       #break
       #case (yy-2)
         #if (b < xx-1)
           #write (asteroid_mesh_inc,  <1+(a-1)*xx+b, 
1+(a-1)*xx+mod(b+1,xx), vertices-1>) // b faces, all sharing last vertex
         #else
           #write (asteroid_mesh_inc,  <1+(a-1)*xx+b, 1+(a-1)*xx, 
vertices-1> // last triangle connecting to first one
         #end
       #break
     #end
     #declare b=b+1;
   #end
   #declare a=a+1;
#end
#write (asteroid_mesh_inc, "  }\n}")

#fclose asteroid_mesh_inc

// end of code

It seemed to parse correctly - but POV-Ray crashed immediately 
afterwards, regardless how big or small values I used for xx and yy. I 
didn't try yet whether it still produced a valid mesh2 - but I don't 
think so.

See you in Khyberspace!

Yadgar

Post a reply to this message

Am 30.12.2017 um 02:21 schrieb Jörg 'Yadgar' Bleimann:
>> Absolutely. Everything you can use in a pigment, eval_pigment() will
>> handle correctly - for technically feasible definitions of "correctly".
> 
> Obviously not, at least not with POV-Ray for Windows... I used a 16-bit
> PNG generated with Wilbur to be parsed to a spherical mesh2 with this
> script:

https://youtu.be/tc2tDFPlyWY?t=1h51m5s

/Some/ day I'll teach you folks to specify the version number when
reporting an issue ;)

> It seemed to parse correctly - but POV-Ray crashed immediately
> afterwards, regardless how big or small values I used for xx and yy. I
> didn't try yet whether it still produced a valid mesh2 - but I don't
> think so.

If the scene parses, it's not an issue with `eval_pigment()`, as that's
called during parsing. Rather, the /scene/ created must have some
problematic properties.

Also, that's a TGA file you're using there, not PNG ;)

To further diagnose the issue, I'd probably need a copy of the image.

Post a reply to this message

On 30/12/2017 12:35, clipka wrote:
> https://youtu.be/tc2tDFPlyWY?t=1h51m5s
> 
> /Some/  day I'll teach you folks to specify the version number when
> reporting an issue;)


That's a bit subtle, for us.
Just say what you mean before we grow beards. ;)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Le 17-12-30 à 11:00, Stephen a écrit :
> On 30/12/2017 12:35, clipka wrote:
>> https://youtu.be/tc2tDFPlyWY?t=1h51m5s
>>
>> /Some/  day I'll teach you folks to specify the version number when
>> reporting an issue;)
> 
> 
> That's a bit subtle, for us.
> Just say what you mean before we grow beards. ;)
> 

If you don't provide the version number, there is no way to know if the 
issue is an old one, maybe already fixed in later version, or a new one 
accidentally introduced.

Where you using version 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, the latest test build...?

Post a reply to this message

Am 30.12.2017 um 17:00 schrieb Stephen:
> On 30/12/2017 12:35, clipka wrote:
>> https://youtu.be/tc2tDFPlyWY?t=1h51m5s
>>
>> /Some/  day I'll teach you folks to specify the version number when
>> reporting an issue;)
> 
> 
> That's a bit subtle, for us.

"Ich verlange ordentliche Meldungen, verdammt nochmal!" is the quote of
the day for Yadgar.

As for you Tommies, ask the folks at Bletchley Park to deciper it :P

https://youtu.be/a5T7LPYVo0Q?t=2h7m34s

> Just say what you mean before we grow beards. ;)

https://youtu.be/7pzKyeIex2Y?t=1m5s

Post a reply to this message

On 31/12/2017 02:16, clipka wrote:
> Am 30.12.2017 um 17:00 schrieb Stephen:
>> On 30/12/2017 12:35, clipka wrote:
>>> https://youtu.be/tc2tDFPlyWY?t=1h51m5s
>>>
>>> /Some/  day I'll teach you folks to specify the version number when
>>> reporting an issue;)
>>
>>
>> That's a bit subtle, for us.
> 
> "Ich verlange ordentliche Meldungen, verdammt nochmal!" is the quote of
> the day for Yadgar.
> 
> As for you Tommies, ask the folks at Bletchley Park to deciper it :P
> 

Oh! dear. A year ago we could have asked Dr John. :(


> https://youtu.be/a5T7LPYVo0Q?t=2h7m34s
> 
>> Just say what you mean before we grow beards. ;)
> 
> https://youtu.be/7pzKyeIex2Y?t=1m5s
> 

See! I was paying attention.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 31.12.2017 um 10:29 schrieb Stephen:
> On 31/12/2017 02:16, clipka wrote:
>> Am 30.12.2017 um 17:00 schrieb Stephen:
>>> On 30/12/2017 12:35, clipka wrote:
>>>> https://youtu.be/tc2tDFPlyWY?t=1h51m5s
>>>>
>>>> /Some/  day I'll teach you folks to specify the version number when
>>>> reporting an issue;)
>>>
>>>
>>> That's a bit subtle, for us.
>>
>> "Ich verlange ordentliche Meldungen, verdammt nochmal!" is the quote of
>> the day for Yadgar.
>>
>> As for you Tommies, ask the folks at Bletchley Park to deciper it :P
>>
> 
> Oh! dear. A year ago we could have asked Dr John. :(

"I demand proper [damage] reports, dammit!"

Post a reply to this message

On 31/12/2017 12:50, clipka wrote:
> Am 31.12.2017 um 10:29 schrieb Stephen:
>> On 31/12/2017 02:16, clipka wrote:
>>> Am 30.12.2017 um 17:00 schrieb Stephen:
>>>> On 30/12/2017 12:35, clipka wrote:
>>>>> https://youtu.be/tc2tDFPlyWY?t=1h51m5s
>>>>>
>>>>> /Some/  day I'll teach you folks to specify the version number when
>>>>> reporting an issue;)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's a bit subtle, for us.
>>>
>>> "Ich verlange ordentliche Meldungen, verdammt nochmal!" is the quote of
>>> the day for Yadgar.
>>>
>>> As for you Tommies, ask the folks at Bletchley Park to deciper it :P
>>>
>>
>> Oh! dear. A year ago we could have asked Dr John. :(
> 
> "I demand proper [damage] reports, dammit!"
> 

So you have said. But you missed that little word that every good boy 
uses. "Please!"
Now is that so hard? :P

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 31.12.2017 um 20:05 schrieb Stephen:

>> "I demand proper [damage] reports, dammit!"
>>
> 
> So you have said. But you missed that little word that every good boy
> uses. "Please!"
> Now is that so hard? :P

"I demand you do as I please me, dammit!"

That better? ;)

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:

> So you have said. But you missed that little word that every good boy
> uses. "Please!"
> Now is that so hard? :P

(Scratching his beard in perplexity...)
Is what so hard?

What broke _now_?
And whose fault is it?

Post a reply to this message

On 31/12/2017 22:59, clipka wrote:
> Am 31.12.2017 um 20:05 schrieb Stephen:
> 
>>> "I demand proper [damage] reports, dammit!"
>>>
>>
>> So you have said. But you missed that little word that every good boy
>> uses. "Please!"
>> Now is that so hard? :P
> 
> "I demand you do as I please me, dammit!"
> 
> That better? ;)
> 

Yes, much better.

NURSE!

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>
> Not really useful, at least not in its current development stage - no
> zoom view and therefore no chance to exactly place the cursor. Perhaps
> it is because I used Windows 7 rather than XP, I don't know...
>
> The fine editor (the second program) is not even downloadable at all!
>
> Nevertheless, thanks for your tip!
>
> See you in Khyberspace!
>
> Yadgar

I don't know why it didn't download for you. I just downloaded it.
Must been the free web site's problem.
Yea, No Zoom, But you can use the arrow Keys to position the mouse where needed.
I did say as a last resort. Those programs are old and they where really made
for small height fields.
Hope you find what ya need.
Have Fun1

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 27.12.2017 um 21:52 schrieb Leroy:
>
> > As a last resort:
> > I have 3 programs at my site that helps make height fields and place objects on
> > them. They where All wrote for my old Win98, but they run on my new WinXP.
>
> "new WinXP"???
>
> Ouch.
I seriously thought about putting the 'new' in quotes. I know I have a problem
with updating to newer versions of windows. Its not only the cost. Nor the time
and effort getting everything back to usable. Its a mater of philosophy, I'm a
carpenter by trade and I have tools that have lasted me for 30 years or more.
Maybe I'm just getting old. My first 'computer' was commodore Vic20, then the
64, and finally the IBM desk top with Win3.1 on it. That IBM I upgraded over the
years until I have an all new computer! Charley, the owner of the store(Software
Center) where I got the computer and bought my upgrades slip Win98 on it.
 I guess what I'm try to say is that I'm not afraid of change. But I can't see
upgrading an operating system every year, or two, or three.

Sorry for the rant, Have Fun!

Post a reply to this message

"Leroy" <whe### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I know I have a problem
> with updating to newer versions of windows. Its not only the cost.

I can't ever remember when i actually paid for a copy of the OS, unless it was
part of the cost of the bundle with the brand new computer itself.

> Nor the time
> and effort getting everything back to usable.

Yeah - 'cause those software developer guys have to changing everything to make
it "better"   :D


> Maybe I'm just getting old.

Pfft.  Don't know what you're talking about.   NOBODY here is old.
Probably just forgot to take your medication this morning.   Or up the dose.
;)

> My first 'computer' was commodore Vic20, then the
> 64, and finally the IBM desk top with Win3.1 on it. That IBM I upgraded over the
> years until I have an all new computer!

I started with a Timex Sinclair 1000, then I got a VIC-20 (which I loved), sold
that and got an Atari 800 XL, and then it wasn't until years later that I got an
HP desktop.  My first upgrade was to an impossibly huge 640 MB HDD  :D   "You'll
NEVER fill that!"

> But I can't see
> upgrading an operating system every year, or two, or three.

Indeed.  Especially since sometimes the new one really really sucks.

Post a reply to this message

Am 02.01.2018 um 02:56 schrieb Bald Eagle:

> I started with a Timex Sinclair 1000, then I got a VIC-20 (which I loved), sold
> that and got an Atari 800 XL, and then it wasn't until years later that I got an
> HP desktop.  My first upgrade was to an impossibly huge 640 MB HDD  :D   "You'll
> NEVER fill that!"

640 MB? That's RIDICULOUSLY large!

The first PC I got my hands on had a hard drive so mind-bogglingly large
that the OS couldn't manage it as a single partition: 40 MB!

Post a reply to this message

On 02/01/2018 05:04, clipka wrote:
> Am 02.01.2018 um 02:56 schrieb Bald Eagle:
> 
>> I started with a Timex Sinclair 1000, then I got a VIC-20 (which I loved), sold
>> that and got an Atari 800 XL, and then it wasn't until years later that I got an
>> HP desktop.  My first upgrade was to an impossibly huge 640 MB HDD  :D   "You'll
>> NEVER fill that!"
> 
> 640 MB? That's RIDICULOUSLY large!
> 

640 MB HDD! Luxury.


> The first PC I got my hands on had a hard drive so mind-bogglingly large
> that the OS couldn't manage it as a single partition: 40 MB!
> 

The first PC I bought was an Amstrad PC1512. Two floppy drives and 512 
Meg of RAM, no HDD. (That taught me a lesson. ;) )


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 2-1-2018 8:12, Stephen wrote:
> On 02/01/2018 05:04, clipka wrote:
>> Am 02.01.2018 um 02:56 schrieb Bald Eagle:
>>
>>> I started with a Timex Sinclair 1000, then I got a VIC-20 (which I 
>>> loved), sold
>>> that and got an Atari 800 XL, and then it wasn't until years later 
>>> that I got an
>>> HP desktop.  My first upgrade was to an impossibly huge 640 MB HDD  
>>> :D   "You'll
>>> NEVER fill that!"
>>
>> 640 MB? That's RIDICULOUSLY large!
>>
> 
> 640 MB HDD! Luxury.
> 
> 
>> The first PC I got my hands on had a hard drive so mind-bogglingly large
>> that the OS couldn't manage it as a single partition: 40 MB!
>>
> 
> The first PC I bought was an Amstrad PC1512. Two floppy drives and 512 
> Meg of RAM, no HDD. (That taught me a lesson. ;) )
>

Same here, with an Amiga 1000, which officially came with 256 Meg and 
you had to (literally) screw in an additional 256.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 01/02/2018 12:04 AM, clipka wrote:

> 
> The first PC I got my hands on had a hard drive so mind-bogglingly large
> that the OS couldn't manage it as a single partition: 40 MB!
> 

I had a PDP-8s (and a PDP-8e).  The 's' was a full 8 foot rack and had 
4KB of core memory.  It had a 16KB hard disk; a 10" platter 1/2" thick 
with 4 fixed heads. You could select which head and which quadrant of 
disk for 1KB resolution!  The downstairs neighbors used to bang on the 
ceiling with a broom when I turned it on because it trashed over-the-air TV.

-- 
dik
Rendered 344576 of 345600 pixels (99%)

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:

> The first PC I bought was an Amstrad PC1512. Two floppy drives and 512
> Meg of RAM, no HDD. (That taught me a lesson. ;) )

Yeah, I think I had a cassette recorder for the VIC-20, and then I just used the
Atari as-is for a while until I finally got the funds-availability to get the
floppy drive.  Which had to be connected and ON when you booted the computer, or
it wouldn't recognize it.   :(  THAT taught me a different lesson.

And then of course when you HAVE a HDD and don't back it up, and it crashes -
that teaches you another lesson entirely.

Post a reply to this message