 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mostly a bugfix update. This also adds "#version 3.1;" to allow you to use
3.1 style layered textures (with rgbf).
* Use "#version 3.1;" to use old-style layered textures
(where filter acts like transmit)
* Use "#version 3.14159;" (yes, PI) to use filters in textures
again in the same scene.
* Fixed problem with automatic range_divider calculation
* Added a better error message for zero vertices in mesh2
* fixed bug with spotlight
http://nathan.kopp.com/patched.htm
-Nathan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nathan Kopp wrote:
> Mostly a bugfix update. This also adds "#version 3.1;" to allow you to use
> 3.1 style layered textures (with rgbf).
FYI: For over six months I ignored mention of your "patch"
thinking it was a Linux patch. Out of curiosity a couple days ago
I took a look and found it was a Windows recompile. I am likely
not the only person who has done this.
--
<blink>-------please--don't-----------------</blink>
http://www.giwersworld.org/artii/
http://www.giwersworld.org/artiii/
Finally up on 99/06/22 updated 06/30
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (1 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Matt Giwer wrote:
>
> Nathan Kopp wrote:
>
> > Mostly a bugfix update. This also adds "#version 3.1;" to allow you to use
> > 3.1 style layered textures (with rgbf).
>
> FYI: For over six months I ignored mention of your "patch"
> thinking it was a Linux patch. Out of curiosity a couple days ago
> I took a look and found it was a Windows recompile. I am likely
> not the only person who has done this.
Perhaps it is slightly misleading if we look to povlegal for the definition
of an unofficial version of Pov.
----------
The user is granted the privilege to modify and compile the source code for
their own personal use in any fashion they see fit. What you do with the
software in your own home is your business.
However severe restrictions are imposed if the user wishes to distribute a
modified version of the software, documentation or other parts of the package
(here after referred to as a "custom version"). You must follow the provisions
given below. This includes any translation of the documentation into other
languages or other file formats.
-----------
So it would appear the pov team refers to them as a "custom version" while
historicaly they have always been referred to as a "Patched version" by
the consumer. While the pov teams official legal stand on this issue calls
it "custom" you must surely understand their acceptance of the term "patch"
which this very group is so named for by an official representative of the
Pov team who administers this news server.
I personaly was never confused on this issue and think it was probably a
misconception on your part that has left you with this understanding of
their intended purpose.
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Matt Giwer wrote:
>
> FYI: For over six months I ignored mention of your "patch"
> thinking it was a Linux patch. Out of curiosity a couple days ago
> I took a look and found it was a Windows recompile. I am likely
> not the only person who has done this.
>
I can understand the confusion, but in these groups custom versions
have come to be called "patches" so I refer to it at times by that name.
-Nathan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nathan Kopp wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
> > FYI: For over six months I ignored mention of your "patch"
> > thinking it was a Linux patch. Out of curiosity a couple days ago
> > I took a look and found it was a Windows recompile. I am likely
> > not the only person who has done this.
> I can understand the confusion, but in these groups custom versions
> have come to be called "patches" so I refer to it at times by that name.
Since there is no such thing as a Windows patch for us lowly
users, simply calling it a Windows patch would get more interest,
at least curiosity.
--
<blink>-------please--don't-----------------</blink>
http://www.giwersworld.org/artii/
http://www.giwersworld.org/artiii/
Finally up on 99/06/22 updated 06/30
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (1 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Jul 1999 06:45:38 -0400, Matt Giwer <mgi### [at] giwersworld org>
wrote:
>Since there is no such thing as a Windows patch for us lowly
>users, simply calling it a Windows patch would get more interest,
>at least curiosity.
Hi, Matt. Referring to it as a Windows patch would be incorrect as the
source should be able to compile under any platform for which there is a
version of POV-Ray. It just so happens that Nathan builds executables to run
under Windows. Others are free to obtain the source from Nathan's web page
to compile UVPov or the photon patch (a misnomer since their is more to
Nathan's patch than simply photons) for their operating system of choice.
My own perception of the use of the word 'patch' is that it first denotes
source code (usually C, regarding POV-Ray), and only secondly an unofficial
modified executable.
While I currently run the Windows as my operating system, as do many other
people who use POV-Ray, it is the wish of the POV-Team to implement patched
modifications to the core rendering engine that are cross-platform and not
platform-specific.
--
Alan
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.povray.org - Home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer
news.povray.org - where POV-Ray enthusiasts around the world can get
together to exchange ideas, information, and experiences with others
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Perhaps some people (non-programmers) would find it more understandable to try
out a MOD(ification) instead of a Patch. A patch to me originally sounded like,
ok, you run this and it changes the executable you are working with. I didn't
want that. Then I found out these were separate executables and I went and got
them.
--
Anthony L. Bennett
http://welcome.to/TonyB
Graphics rendered
by the Dreamachine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hmmm, i always thought these 'patches' were supposed
to go on your jacket or your underwear. you know, to
declare allegiance to the 'POV-Team' or something.
I finally went ahead and downloaded the
SuperPatch, even though i couldn't figure out how
downloading the thing was ever going to cover the hole
in my shorts and spent a couple weeks trying to get it
to stay on my shorts.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Jul 1999 06:45:38 -0400, Matt Giwer
<mgi### [at] giwersworldorg> wrote:
>Nathan Kopp wrote:
>
>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>
>> > FYI: For over six months I ignored mention of your "patch"
>> > thinking it was a Linux patch. Out of curiosity a couple days ago
>> > I took a look and found it was a Windows recompile. I am likely
>> > not the only person who has done this.
>
>> I can understand the confusion, but in these groups custom versions
>> have come to be called "patches" so I refer to it at times by that name.
>
> Since there is no such thing as a Windows patch for us lowly
>users, simply calling it a Windows patch would get more interest,
>at least curiosity.
Say what?
|C:\WINDOWS> patch --help
|Usage: /CYGNUS/CYGWIN~1/H-I586~1/BIN/PATCH.EXE [OPTION]... [ORIGFILE [PATCHFILE]]
|Input options:
|
|[...]
|Report bugs to <bug### [at] prepaimitedu>.
In any case, I call the superpatch a patch because everyone's always
called custom versions patches, and because many of those patches
actually are distributed as diffs, which are applied with 'patch' to
the original source code. Mine isn't, because the diffs would
probably be larger than the source, but it is still distributed in the
form of source code that must be used to patch the official source
distribution, in a sense. That I also distribute binaries for Windows
and Linux is simply a matter of convenience for those users who either
haven't got or are intimidated by a C compiler.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Matt Giwer wrote:
>
> Nathan Kopp wrote:
>
> > Mostly a bugfix update. This also adds "#version 3.1;" to allow you to use
> > 3.1 style layered textures (with rgbf).
>
> FYI: For over six months I ignored mention of your "patch"
> thinking it was a Linux patch. Out of curiosity a couple days ago
> I took a look and found it was a Windows recompile. I am likely
> not the only person who has done this.
You folks do what you want. I was just pointing out something
that I might be of interest. I know what it is now and may get
around to giving it a try some day.
--
<blink>-------please--don't-----------------</blink>
http://www.giwersworld.org/artii/
http://www.giwersworld.org/artiii/
Finally up on 99/06/22 updated 06/30
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (1 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
