 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi guys,
While doing wrapper for light source I was little bit confused with this line:
....
Light source default values:
LIGHT_TYPE : pointlight
....
on wiki page: https://wiki.povray.org/content/Reference:Light_Source
As soon as there is no 'pointlight' in this list:
....
LIGHT_TYPE:
spotlight | shadowless | cylinder | parallel
....
and parser gives an error on this keyword, the only way to define point light is
not to set LIGHT_TYPE at all.
Not a big problem, but it seams to me there is some misunderstanding here.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Also about 'shadowless':
This semantics:
.....
LIGHT_TYPE:
spotlight | shadowless | cylinder | parallel
.....
Conflicts with phrase:
"shadowless may be used with all types of light sources"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
"yesbird" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>> pointlight
> Also about 'shadowless':
no entirely sure but the wiki documentation is for the latest (v3.8) version,
there may have been changes from 3.7.0.
<https://github.com/POV-Ray/povray/tags>
also, just fyi, there's a dedicated 'documentation.inbuilt' NG, for eg
clarifications or better wording, etc. hth.
regards, jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> no entirely sure but the wiki documentation is for the latest (v3.8) version,
> there may have been changes from 3.7.0.
Just checked it with 3.8 - same thing: 'pointlight' gives an error
> also, just fyi, there's a dedicated 'documentation.inbuilt' NG, for eg
> clarifications or better wording, etc. hth.
Thanks, I will use it in future.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"yesbird" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> While doing wrapper for light source I was little bit confused with this line:
> ....
> Light source default values:
> LIGHT_TYPE : pointlight
> ....
> on wiki page: https://wiki.povray.org/content/Reference:Light_Source
>
> As soon as there is no 'pointlight' in this list:
> ....
> LIGHT_TYPE:
> spotlight | shadowless | cylinder | parallel
> ....
> and parser gives an error on this keyword, the only way to define point light is
> not to set LIGHT_TYPE at all.
>
> Not a big problem, but it seams to me there is some misunderstanding here.
Welcome to the wonderful world of POV-Ray documentation.
If you read that whole section, it will make sense, and there are specific
sentences and phrases that explain exactly what you are describing.
It's a 30-year old open source project, not a commercial profit-supported
software package, and we just have to live with certain aspects of that.
I'd say that given the massive amount of documentation that has been made, it
was a herculean task, and I think that overall it came out pretty well. But
there are parts that we still are not happy with and bicker about ;)
You and/or a friend could submit suggested replacement language. We could
specifically add an explicit point_light keyword - but atm we don't have a
developer to implement that in official source.
Or maybe Mr. Holsenback can make some edits to the extant documentation as he
sees fit.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Welcome to the wonderful world of POV-Ray documentation.
Thanks )
Don't see any problem here, because I am not new to large open source projects
and know very well that documentation always late, while functionality has
priority.
At the same time I have a rule: if I see bug, I am writing bug report - this is
my small contribution to project to make it better.
I would like to participate in POV development, but prefere to concentrate now
on my present Matlab's wrapper, may be in distant future, after I complete it
more or less ...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"yesbird" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> At the same time I have a rule: if I see bug, I am writing bug report - this is
> my small contribution to project to make it better.
Thanks - always good to have a fresh pair of eyes to call out things that we
have become jaded to and unconsciously assume / perform work-arounds for.
> I would like to participate in POV development, but prefere to concentrate now
> on my present Matlab's wrapper, may be in distant future, after I complete it
> more or less ...
By all means, get your current project done - because it seems like a whopper.
And if there are any features that other languages have that SDL does NOT, then
it would probably be a good idea to point that out, since the more functionality
we have, the more we can do, and the less obstacles users will be frustrated by.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
