|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: clipka
Subject: PoseRay 3.13.15 BETA: wrong POV-Ray +AM command line parameter
Date: 17 Mar 2012 02:12:43
Message: <4f642b5b$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I just noticed that the PoseRay 3.13.15 BETA puts the wrong +AM command
line parameter in the *_POV_scene.pov header comment, giving me this:
//This file was designed to run with the following command line options:
// +W1024 +H768 +FN +AM3 +A -UA
when I chose recursive AA.
The INI file is ok.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: FlyerX
Subject: Re: PoseRay 3.13.15 BETA: wrong POV-Ray +AM command line parameter
Date: 26 Mar 2012 20:40:19
Message: <4f710c73$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/17/2012 1:12 AM, clipka wrote:
> I just noticed that the PoseRay 3.13.15 BETA puts the wrong +AM command
> line parameter in the *_POV_scene.pov header comment, giving me this:
>
> //This file was designed to run with the following command line options:
> // +W1024 +H768 +FN +AM3 +A -UA
>
> when I chose recursive AA.
>
> The INI file is ok.
Thanks for the bug report. This, among other things, will be fixed on
the next PoseRay beta that will be released this week.
regards,
FlyerX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: PoseRay 3.13.15 BETA: wrong POV-Ray +AM command line parameter
Date: 27 Mar 2012 03:00:28
Message: <4f71658c@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27-3-2012 2:40, FlyerX wrote:
> On 3/17/2012 1:12 AM, clipka wrote:
>> I just noticed that the PoseRay 3.13.15 BETA puts the wrong +AM command
>> line parameter in the *_POV_scene.pov header comment, giving me this:
>>
>> //This file was designed to run with the following command line options:
>> // +W1024 +H768 +FN +AM3 +A -UA
>>
>> when I chose recursive AA.
>>
>> The INI file is ok.
>
> Thanks for the bug report. This, among other things, will be fixed on
> the next PoseRay beta that will be released this week.
>
About next release (or later) you may have seen in p.b.i. Norbert Kern's
Coloured leaves and the use he made of an old Poseray version to export
mesh files instead of mesh2. Would it be an idea to make this an option
in future Poseray? mesh2 remaining the default of course. It might be
useful for different things.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: FlyerX
Subject: Re: PoseRay 3.13.15 BETA: wrong POV-Ray +AM command line parameter
Date: 27 Mar 2012 06:16:31
Message: <4f71937f$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/27/2012 2:00 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 27-3-2012 2:40, FlyerX wrote:
>> On 3/17/2012 1:12 AM, clipka wrote:
>>> I just noticed that the PoseRay 3.13.15 BETA puts the wrong +AM command
>>> line parameter in the *_POV_scene.pov header comment, giving me this:
>>>
>>> //This file was designed to run with the following command line options:
>>> // +W1024 +H768 +FN +AM3 +A -UA
>>>
>>> when I chose recursive AA.
>>>
>>> The INI file is ok.
>>
>> Thanks for the bug report. This, among other things, will be fixed on
>> the next PoseRay beta that will be released this week.
>>
>
> About next release (or later) you may have seen in p.b.i. Norbert Kern's
> Coloured leaves and the use he made of an old Poseray version to export
> mesh files instead of mesh2. Would it be an idea to make this an option
> in future Poseray? mesh2 remaining the default of course. It might be
> useful for different things.
>
> Thomas
>
I saw that post. I really do not understand the projection pattern well
enough to see why is mesh{} still needed. The old mesh format was
removed from PoseRay's code base a long time ago. It created files that
were way too large and it was slow to parse. Often, with large models,
POV-Ray would run out of memory. I will look into it but I doubt mesh{}
will return to PoseRay.
FlyerX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: PoseRay 3.13.15 BETA: wrong POV-Ray +AM command line parameter
Date: 27 Mar 2012 07:39:46
Message: <4f71a702@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27-3-2012 12:16, FlyerX wrote:
> I saw that post. I really do not understand the projection pattern well
> enough to see why is mesh{} still needed. The old mesh format was
> removed from PoseRay's code base a long time ago. It created files that
> were way too large and it was slow to parse. Often, with large models,
> POV-Ray would run out of memory. I will look into it but I doubt mesh{}
> will return to PoseRay.
>
Fair enough. Just a suggestion.
I have not yet experimented with Norbert's example. I am indeed aware of
the size problem related with mesh{} files. POV-Tree for example writes
in mesh{} as the program never made it into a mesh2{} version
unfortunately, and some tree files get memory problems indeed.
[Note to self: should try to import such a file in Poseray and re-export
as mesh2.]
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |