 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Speaking of POV-Ray versions, what version are y'all using?
I see several tags in git,
v3.8.0-x.tokenizer.* (2019-01-02)
v3.8.0-x.freetype.2 (2019-02-19)
and
v3.8.0-alpha.10064268 (2019-02-18)
Is the tokenizer stable? I was waiting for clipka to merge that before
importing it into qtpovray, but he seems to have wandered off into RL.
Cousin Ricky says the '268 version doesn't build out of the box.
I wished we'd cut a 3.8.0 release when we were oh-so-close 2 years ago.
There were a bunch of new features over 3.7 and it was pretty stable.
My plan was to release qtpovray to the debian pool when 3.8 happened,
but it looks like now an actual 3.8 release is a dream.
-
dik
Rendered 17306265600 of 40928716800 pixels (42%)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Op 25/10/2019 om 17:18 schreef Dick Balaska:
> Speaking of POV-Ray versions, what version are y'all using?
>
> I see several tags in git,
> v3.8.0-x.tokenizer.* (2019-01-02)
> v3.8.0-x.freetype.2 (2019-02-19)
> and
> v3.8.0-alpha.10064268 (2019-02-18)
>
> Is the tokenizer stable? I was waiting for clipka to merge that before
> importing it into qtpovray, but he seems to have wandered off into RL.
>
> Cousin Ricky says the '268 version doesn't build out of the box.
>
> I wished we'd cut a 3.8.0 release when we were oh-so-close 2 years ago.
> There were a bunch of new features over 3.7 and it was pretty stable. My
> plan was to release qtpovray to the debian pool when 3.8 happened, but
> it looks like now an actual 3.8 release is a dream.
>
> -
> dik
> Rendered 17306265600 of 40928716800 pixels (42%)
I am using povray-3.8.0-alpha.10064268-av691-win64 which is stable as
far as I can tell: I never had any strange things happening. Don't know
where Clipka has wandered off to, but I have assumed that he has decided
to dedicate himself entirely to the development of POV-Ray, without
being disturbed by our shouts and bangings on the front door. ;-)
I may be wrong, though...
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degroot org> wrote:
> Op 25/10/2019 om 17:18 schreef Dick Balaska:
> > Speaking of POV-Ray versions, what version are y'all using?
> >
> > I see several tags in git,
> > v3.8.0-x.tokenizer.* (2019-01-02)
> > v3.8.0-x.freetype.2 (2019-02-19)
> > and
> > v3.8.0-alpha.10064268 (2019-02-18)
> >
> > Is the tokenizer stable? I was waiting for clipka to merge that before
> > importing it into qtpovray, but he seems to have wandered off into RL.
> >
> > Cousin Ricky says the '268 version doesn't build out of the box.
> >
> > I wished we'd cut a 3.8.0 release when we were oh-so-close 2 years ago.
> > There were a bunch of new features over 3.7 and it was pretty stable. My
> > plan was to release qtpovray to the debian pool when 3.8 happened, but
> > it looks like now an actual 3.8 release is a dream.
> >
> > -
> > dik
> > Rendered 17306265600 of 40928716800 pixels (42%)
>
>
> I am using povray-3.8.0-alpha.10064268-av691-win64 which is stable as
> far as I can tell: I never had any strange things happening. Don't know
> where Clipka has wandered off to, but I have assumed that he has decided
> to dedicate himself entirely to the development of POV-Ray, without
> being disturbed by our shouts and bangings on the front door. ;-)
>
> I may be wrong, though...
>
> --
> Thomas
Happy that it does feature AA type 3, etc. I am waiting to see if 3.8 can merge
as many versions as possible (using Uberpov and 3.7 currently) if nothing from
uberpov is missing in 3.8 AND if it gets officially distributed (builds?) The
Blender exporter could be simplified switching to it only. any chance of seing
HG pov get merged as well?
I would speculate that Indeed clipka could be coding silently on bigger projects
than usual rather than just having a life, because that would be more consistent
with the mysterious new color spaces that were added to POV 3.8 :-) Unless
someone else put them there and could explain what they are for?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/25/19 11:18 AM, Dick Balaska wrote:
> Speaking of POV-Ray versions, what version are y'all using?
>
> I see several tags in git,
> v3.8.0-x.tokenizer.* (2019-01-02)
> v3.8.0-x.freetype.2 (2019-02-19)
> and
> v3.8.0-alpha.10064268 (2019-02-18)
>
> Is the tokenizer stable? I was waiting for clipka to merge that before
> importing it into qtpovray, but he seems to have wandered off into RL.
>
> Cousin Ricky says the '268 version doesn't build out of the box.
>
> I wished we'd cut a 3.8.0 release when we were oh-so-close 2 years ago.
> There were a bunch of new features over 3.7 and it was pretty stable. My
> plan was to release qtpovray to the debian pool when 3.8 happened, but
> it looks like now an actual 3.8 release is a dream.
>
> -
> dik
> Rendered 17306265600 of 40928716800 pixels (42%)
My recollection with respect to release branches and status.
As far as I know the new tokenizer with all fixes is already in the
current 3.8 master branch. I'm playing with one, sometimes very
significant performance update to the function VM which is parser
related. I'd vote for the update to be in any 3.8 release. See:
https://github.com/wfpokorny/povray/tree/performance/parseVMconstants
The freetype update has issues with inside tests which would need to be
fixed at a minimum. I suspect there are further issues given POV-Ray
handles loops with respect to insides differently than these are handled
with fonts. POV-Ray using edge crossing test counts to determine
inside-ness and fonts using clock-wise vs counter-clockwise loop
rotation and allowing inside or outside loops to overlap without
changing inside/outside meaning. Fonts which do this sort of same
winding direction loop overlapping will not today work - no matter
adopting the freetype library or not, but I think we don't know the
frequency of fonts with overlapped loops in the additional font types
use of freetype enables. For any merge into 3.8 and release - maybe this
last a worry about it later thing. I don't know. If the overlaps common
and not addressed a POV-Ray freetype enabled release might 'look' really
buggy.
I agree with Thomas in finding the current 3.8 release quite stable.
However, there is a performance degrade of 30-40% for generic
architecture compiles (the usual linux package compiles). It happens
with somewhat common use cases which are not represented well by our
benchmark scene. In my view the degrade would ideally be addressed to at
least some degree prior to any 3.8 release. See:
https://github.com/POV-Ray/povray/issues/363
for details.
Oh, some of the shape uv mapping documented as enabled is currently
disabled / reverted to incorrect behavior (some earlier corrected -
ovus) - due issues... There are days I think we should just yank all the
3.7/3.8 in-shape uv mapping given actual use and implementation - but
yeah, won't happen - and so it's a mess needing some straightening out
ahead of any 3.8 release.
Certain I'm not remembering everything open... One more - given vim/gvim
ships with all linux with 3.7 syntax support, suppose somebody should
update it for any 3.8 release. On my list, but who knows when or if ever
I'll get to it(1).
Bill P.
(1) - Quite a few instances in my current vim use where I don't really
agree with the current 3.7 keyword syntax bucketing, but what's there is
useful.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2019-11-01 à 04:58, Mr a écrit :
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> Op 25/10/2019 om 17:18 schreef Dick Balaska:
>>> Speaking of POV-Ray versions, what version are y'all using?
>>>
>>> I see several tags in git,
>>> v3.8.0-x.tokenizer.* (2019-01-02)
>>> v3.8.0-x.freetype.2 (2019-02-19)
>>> and
>>> v3.8.0-alpha.10064268 (2019-02-18)
>>>
>>> Is the tokenizer stable? I was waiting for clipka to merge that before
>>> importing it into qtpovray, but he seems to have wandered off into RL.
>>>
>>> Cousin Ricky says the '268 version doesn't build out of the box.
>>>
>>> I wished we'd cut a 3.8.0 release when we were oh-so-close 2 years ago.
>>> There were a bunch of new features over 3.7 and it was pretty stable. My
>>> plan was to release qtpovray to the debian pool when 3.8 happened, but
>>> it looks like now an actual 3.8 release is a dream.
>>>
>>> -
>>> dik
>>> Rendered 17306265600 of 40928716800 pixels (42%)
>>
>>
>> I am using povray-3.8.0-alpha.10064268-av691-win64 which is stable as
>> far as I can tell: I never had any strange things happening. Don't know
>> where Clipka has wandered off to, but I have assumed that he has decided
>> to dedicate himself entirely to the development of POV-Ray, without
>> being disturbed by our shouts and bangings on the front door. ;-)
>>
>> I may be wrong, though...
>>
>> --
>> Thomas
>
> Happy that it does feature AA type 3, etc. I am waiting to see if 3.8 can merge
> as many versions as possible (using Uberpov and 3.7 currently) if nothing from
> uberpov is missing in 3.8 AND if it gets officially distributed (builds?) The
> Blender exporter could be simplified switching to it only. any chance of seing
> HG pov get merged as well?
> I would speculate that Indeed clipka could be coding silently on bigger projects
> than usual rather than just having a life, because that would be more consistent
> with the mysterious new color spaces that were added to POV 3.8 :-) Unless
> someone else put them there and could explain what they are for?
>
reflection{Reflect roughness Rough} is still on the to-do list.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/2/19 5:28 AM, William F Pokorny wrote:
> As far as I know the new tokenizer with all fixes is already in the
> current 3.8 master branch.
I see it now. And '268 picked up master.
The Smartgit visualization was default sorted by "primary branches"
which was a mess to follow. (2015 work 'looked' newer than 2019 work).
I found Sort by Date, which is much clearer; it reduced 16 "active"
branches to 5.
Ok, I'll update to '268.
--
dik
Rendered 21,270,988,800 of 40,928,716,800 pixels (51%)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
William F Pokorny <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> (1) - Quite a few instances in my current vim use where I don't really
> agree with the current 3.7 keyword syntax bucketing, but what's there is
> useful.
And did you,by any chance, get to try the Blender's text editor POV syntax
highlighting ? Some feedback could be nice to know if I did things more or less
correctly there : Just enable the POV Ray addon to have automatic syntax
highlight from the dedicated icon for inc, pov, mcr, ini files...
(for the available pov templates or your own opened files)
Alain Martel <kua### [at] videotronca> wrote:
> reflection{Reflect roughness Rough} is still on the to-do list.
Indeed a show stopper. Where would that todo list be?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/8/19 5:17 AM, Mr wrote:
> William F Pokorny <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> (1) - Quite a few instances in my current vim use where I don't really
>> agree with the current 3.7 keyword syntax bucketing, but what's there is
>> useful.
>
> And did you,by any chance, get to try the Blender's text editor POV syntax
> highlighting ? Some feedback could be nice to know if I did things more or less
> correctly there : Just enable the POV Ray addon to have automatic syntax
> highlight from the dedicated icon for inc, pov, mcr, ini files...
> (for the available pov templates or your own opened files)
>
No. Though I have Blender installed - and in part because I had intended
to look at the text editor for POV-Ray... I'll keep taking a look in
mind - if and when I seriously look at updated vim highlighting / error
checking.
Bill P.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
