So are you big bad programmers going to fix the brightness bug in
POV-ray for Windows??  Or do you guys not understand radiosity code?  Or
what?     And did you even know there was a brightness bug?? 

Reply via email by removing X's :)

Steve Horn
hor### [at] osuedu

Post a reply to this message

The person that named itself "?"  wrote in message
<352### [at] popserviceohio-stateedu>...
>So are you big bad programmers going to fix the brightness bug in
>POV-ray for Windows??  Or do you guys not understand radiosity code?  Or
>what?     And did you even know there was a brightness bug??


Very strange how someone "asking" for something can be so rude. Do you
really think to get something going this way?
I guess it was this attitude that made the POV-Ray developers seclude
themselves to their Compuserve forum. And I can't blame them, even if I
canceled my CiS account a few months ago...

Johannes.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 08 Apr 1998 17:56:40 -0400, ?
<hor### [at] popserviceohio-stateedu> wrote:

>So are you big bad programmers going to fix the brightness bug in
>POV-ray for Windows??  Or do you guys not understand radiosity code?  Or
>what?     And did you even know there was a brightness bug?? 

Perhaps we just didn't care, since radiosity is an experimental
feature and the POV-Team is likely to change it all in a future
release.  Y'see, the people who hang out here are NOT the POV-Team.
We have even less incentive than they do to take requests, because we
mostly do patches we want for ourselves and then make them available
for other people, but even they are unlikely to respond to such a
rudely phrased question.  In fact, such rudeness is why they don't do
Internet support, and why you rarely see them even posting here, on
their own news server.  

If you can't say something nice...

Post a reply to this message

It was this same (?) that went through and posted to ever group on the
service a few months back. He should be aware that the real pov guys are
very talented programmers and don't need to be reminded about the radiosity
problem.
  Anyone else have a problem with it being broken? I get good enough images
as is. I have no complaints.

- Grim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 9 Apr 1998 10:57:11 +0200, "Johannes Hubert" <jhu### [at] algonetse>
wrote:
>Very strange how someone "asking" for something can be so rude. Do you
>really think to get something going this way?
>I guess it was this attitude that made the POV-Ray developers seclude
>themselves to their Compuserve forum. And I can't blame them, even if I
>canceled my CiS account a few months ago...
>
>Johannes.
>

Actually it is a really simple bug to correct, so maybe you didn't understand
the humor in my post.  There is nothing wrong with the developer's approach.
It won't be a major overhaul in any way to get rid of the bug.  I beleive any
programmer could simply look at the code and they would immediately find the
problem.

Steve Horn :)
hor### [at] osuedu

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 09 Apr 1998 15:30:35 GMT, ron### [at] farmworkscom (Ronald L. Parker) wrote:
>Perhaps we just didn't care, since radiosity is an experimental
>feature and the POV-Team is likely to change it all in a future
>release.  Y'see, the people who hang out here are NOT the POV-Team.
>We have even less incentive than they do to take requests, because we
>mostly do patches we want for ourselves and then make them available

Not at all.  Like I said before, this is no major request.  It's a very simple
bug to find and correct, and so maybe you didn't see the humor in my post.
Don't sweat it. I believe anyone could merely look at the code and find the
problem immiediately.  These ostracizing responses only go to show that you
guys aren't looking at these parts of the code at all! 

Steve :)
hor### [at] osuedu

Post a reply to this message

So fix it.

? wrote:

> On Thu, 09 Apr 1998 15:30:35 GMT, ron### [at] farmworkscom (Ronald L. Parker) wrote:
> >Perhaps we just didn't care, since radiosity is an experimental
> >feature and the POV-Team is likely to change it all in a future
> >release.  Y'see, the people who hang out here are NOT the POV-Team.
> >We have even less incentive than they do to take requests, because we
> >mostly do patches we want for ourselves and then make them available
>
> Not at all.  Like I said before, this is no major request.  It's a very simple
> bug to find and correct, and so maybe you didn't see the humor in my post.
> Don't sweat it. I believe anyone could merely look at the code and find the
> problem immiediately.  These ostracizing responses only go to show that you
> guys aren't looking at these parts of the code at all!
>
> Steve :)
> hor### [at] osuedu

Post a reply to this message

- Snip -
>Don't sweat it. I believe anyone could merely look at the code and find the
>problem immiediately.  These ostracizing responses only go to show that you
>guys aren't looking at these parts of the code at all!
>
>Steve :)
>hor### [at] osuedu


  Put out a patch then, dude! :)
  I code Pov, I code assembler, Fortran, C++,... but I only code Pov for
fun. I almost don't code scripts within pov, because it's too much like
programming. When Pov starts to hit me like programming, I go play Quake.
  So, I'll understand if you feel the same way. BUT, I won't place demands,
or arrogate, to guys that are offering a great program for free.
  Think about it. :)

- Grim

Post a reply to this message

Hi Steve!

>Actually it is a really simple bug to correct, so maybe you didn't
understand
>the humor in my post.

No, I certainly didn't, and after reading it again, I still don't! This
"didn't see the humour" response seems to be more like a typical "Rude
post" -> "Angry reply" -> "Hey man, didn't mean it..." follow up.

>I beleive any
>programmer could simply look at the code and they would immediately find
the
>problem.

You may be perfectly right with that and nobody would dispute you the right
to post here, to mention a bug you (may) have found and ask if anyone has
fixed it or plans to.
It was you choice of words (and the attitude they let shine through) that we
didn't appreciate.

Now - I don't want to make a flame-war out of this (after all, among the
thing I like so much about news.povray.org is "almost no spam" and "no
flames" - raytracers are very polite people, really :-) , so I hope you
don't see the responses you got as personal attacks but more as hints what
you did wrong. And hopefully next time you wont get the same problems...

Johannes.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 09 Apr 1998 22:24:14 GMT, hor### [at] osuedu (?) wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Apr 1998 15:30:35 GMT, ron### [at] farmworkscom (Ronald L. Parker) wrote:
>>Perhaps we just didn't care, since radiosity is an experimental
>>feature and the POV-Team is likely to change it all in a future
>>release.  

>Don't sweat it. I believe anyone could merely look at the code and find the
>problem immiediately.  These ostracizing responses only go to show that you
>guys aren't looking at these parts of the code at all! 

You must have missed it the first time: radiosity is an experimental
feature and the POV-Team is likely to change it all in a future
release.  Why would we want to build functionality on top of a
temporary feature?  Of course we haven't looked at that part of the
code, because it's not really there.  It's just a placeholder for the
real code, when it comes along.

Okay, for those who missed it, here's the bug in radiosity:  it allows
people who don't understand its status as an experimental feature to
use it and then complain because it doesn't do what they expect it to.
To fix it, I suggest that all images rendered with radiosity should
automatically add

text {
  ttf "times.ttf", "Experimental" .01,  0
  texture {pigment {colour red 1 transmit .9}}
  }

to the image, then transform it so it'll be right in front of the
camera.  This could be disabled by adding an appropriate #declare to
the scene to acknowledge that you understand the caveats and are
prepared to live with them, as with GUI Extensions on Windows.

Either that, or Mr. Horn could grace us with a description of the
error in the program, rather than wasting our time and his telling us
about the error of our ways.

Post a reply to this message