 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I recently rendered some old scene files that created years ago using PovRAY
v1.0 and noticed some odd differences in the way light and objects
interact.
the difference.
Does anyone know what change in newer versions of PovRAY cause the objects
to be completely opaque and what I would need to change to make them only
The version 3.6 command-line used to render the scene was:
povray +MV1.0 +w320 +h200 -d -x -v -p +ft +A0.3 +ilit01.pov +olit01.tga
The scene file is:
// ---------------------------------------------------
// Scene File: lit01.pov
//
#include "colors.inc"
#include "textures.inc"
camera
{
location <0 1 -3>
direction <0 0 1.5>
up <0 1 0>
right <1.33 0 0>
look_at <0 1 2>
rotate <1.25 0 0>
rotate <0 15.5 0>
}
// ++++++ a backdrop wall
object
{
plane { <0 0 1> 7}
texture { color Gray }
}
// ++++++ a neutral but patterened floor for reference
object
{
plane { <0 1 0> 0 }
texture
{
checker
color White
color Gray
}
}
// ++++++ a light in a box shining through a slot
composite
{
object
{
difference
{
box{ <-.125 -.125 -.125> <.125 .125 .125> }
box{ <-.015 -.120 -.120> <.015 .120 .130> }
}
texture
{
color blue .45 red .35 green 1
}
}
object {light_source { <0 0 -.100> color green 1} }
translate <0 .125 .125>
}
composite
{
object
{
difference
{
difference
{
box{ <-.125 -.125 -.125> <.125 .125 .125> }
box{ <-.120 -.120 -.120> <.120 .120 .120> }
}
box{ <-.015 -.120 .115> <.015 .120 .130> }
}
texture
{
color blue .35 red 1 green .45
}
}
object {light_source { <0 0 -.100> color red 1} }
translate <.5 .125 .125>
}
composite
{
object
{
difference
{
box{ <-.125 -.125 -.125> <.125 .125 .125> }
box{ <-.015 -.120 -.120> <.015 .120 .130> }
}
texture
{
color blue 1 red .35 green .45
}
}
object {light_source { <0 0 -.100> color blue 1} }
translate <-0.5 .125 .125>
}
// ++++++ some ambient over all light
object {light_source {<2 4 -3> color Gray70}}
// ---------------------------------------------------
--- 1Daedalus
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Does anyone know what change in newer versions of PovRAY cause the objects
> to be completely opaque and what I would need to change to make them only
> "mostly" opaque as they were in version 1.0?
"composite" must be ancient, I'm not sure I've even heard of it before.
Anyway, the objects *are* opaque, they have no transparency in their colors.
Maybe you want double_illuminate?
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Before double_illuminate was introduced, surfaces of some objects would
become double-illuminated under various (mostly undocumented) circumstances.
In MegaPOV and then later in the official POV-Ray, we made the behavior
consistent and unambiguous, but then added the double_illuminate keyword to
allow the feature (a.k.a. bug) to be turned back on when it was needed (thus
making it a true feature and not a bug).
The bicubic_patch was notorious for always being double-illuminated before
this change was introduced.
-Nathan
"Slime" <fak### [at] email address> wrote...
> > Does anyone know what change in newer versions of PovRAY cause the
objects
> > to be completely opaque and what I would need to change to make them
only
> > "mostly" opaque as they were in version 1.0?
>
>
> "composite" must be ancient, I'm not sure I've even heard of it before.
>
> Anyway, the objects *are* opaque, they have no transparency in their
colors.
> Maybe you want double_illuminate?
>
> - Slime
> [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nathan Kopp <pov### [at] nkoppmailshellcom> wrote:
> The bicubic_patch was notorious for always being double-illuminated before
> this change was introduced.
I think that mesh was even more notorious for this.
There was a quite good reason, though: It elliminated this problem:
http://tag.povray.org/povQandT/SmoothTriangleArtifact/index.html
When the implicit double-illumination was removed (in pov3.5, iirc),
this problem immediately surfaced. :P
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Nathan Kopp <pov### [at] nkoppmailshellcom> wrote:
> > The bicubic_patch was notorious for always being double-illuminated before
> > this change was introduced.
>
> I think that mesh was even more notorious for this.
>
> There was a quite good reason, though: It elliminated this problem:
> http://tag.povray.org/povQandT/SmoothTriangleArtifact/index.html
>
> When the implicit double-illumination was removed (in pov3.5, iirc),
> this problem immediately surfaced. :P
>
> --
> - Warp
Thanks for the link, I found the technical discussion illuminating. ;-)
-- 1Daedalus
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"1Daedalus" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > Nathan Kopp <pov### [at] nkoppmailshellcom> wrote:
> > > The bicubic_patch was notorious for always being double-illuminated before
> > > this change was introduced.
> >
> > I think that mesh was even more notorious for this.
> >
> > There was a quite good reason, though: It elliminated this problem:
> > http://tag.povray.org/povQandT/SmoothTriangleArtifact/index.html
> >
> > When the implicit double-illumination was removed (in pov3.5, iirc),
> > this problem immediately surfaced. :P
> >
> > --
> > - Warp
>
> Thanks for the link, I found the technical discussion illuminating. ;-)
>
> -- 1Daedalus
fyi, for anyone who reads this thread, suggestions to try
"double-illumination" or transparency are off track. The
double-illumination keyword only applies to surfaces, not solids.
Transparency doesn't work either, it tends to make the objects see-through
rather than transluscent.
-- 1Daedalus
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
1Daedalus <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> The
> double-illumination keyword only applies to surfaces, not solids.
There are no solids in povray. Everything is a surface.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> There are no solids in povray. Everything is a surface.
What of media? (And according to dictionary.com, there most certainly
are solids in POVRay; "of or relating to three-dimensional geometric
figures or bodies", "a geometric figure having three dimensions")
--
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote:
> > There are no solids in povray. Everything is a surface.
> What of media?
Media does not act like an object. It cannot reflect nor refract rays,
nor it has a surface other than defined by a true object. You cannot
have a media "object" all by itself; either it is contained by a true
object or it occupies the entire universe.
> (And according to dictionary.com, there most certainly
> are solids in POVRay; "of or relating to three-dimensional geometric
> figures or bodies", "a geometric figure having three dimensions")
POV-Ray only handles surfaces, not solid objects. It's basically
impossible to handle solid objects with raytracing.
What's the difference, you might ask? The difference is that when you
apply a texture to an object, the texture is applied to the surface only
(because the object is a surface, nothing more). This is evident when
parts of the texture are transparent.
It's also evident when you clip an object.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
