 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <399beb40@news.povray.org>, Warp <war### [at] tag povrayorg>
wrote:
>Remco Poelstra <rjp### [at] homenl> wrote:
>: That MegaPOV is more unstable.
>
> More unstable? I haven't noticed this.
I don't think it's so much that it is more unstable, but that it has
more features, some of which are unstable. For example, it is very easy
to crash MegaPOV on my Macintosh when using post-processing on large
images. Very difficult to crash Official POV when using post-processing
on large images :*)
Jerry
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Nathan Kopp" wrote:
> "Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote...
> > Official POV-Ray is faster
>
> That used to be true, but it is not anymore.
Ok, but it still doesn't change my point of view.
Actually I'm just surprised that none of my other arguments have been shot
down...! :-)
Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated July 23)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote...
> "Nathan Kopp" wrote:
> > "Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote...
> > > Official POV-Ray is faster
> >
> > That used to be true, but it is not anymore.
>
> Ok, but it still doesn't change my point of view.
>
> Actually I'm just surprised that none of my other arguments have been shot
> down...! :-)
Actually, as I understand it, the general consensus within the team agrees
with your points, and we are addressing them before the release of POV 3.5.
POV 3.5 will not simply be a re-labeled MegaPov. That is why all of you
have to continue to wait.
Also, it is my hope that most MegaPov users will switch to POV 3.5 when it
is released, though I also hope that at least some will go back to using
MegaPov after an updated MegaPov is released (based on POV 3.5) so that
various new features can continue to be put through the paces.
-Nathan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Nathan Kopp" <Nat### [at] Koppcom> wrote in message
news:399c7e48$1@news.povray.org...
|
| I also hope that at least some will go back to using
| MegaPov after an updated MegaPov is released (based on POV 3.5) so that
| various new features can continue to be put through the paces.
Good news in what you say. Will MegaPov 1.0 be the next version number
leap? It kind of remains unfinished until it hits a whole number, or at
least seems that way.
I thought of a great name change: Beta-POV. Sounds less a cousin to POV
and describes it better, if it is a test-bed anyhow. "Mega-" seems a number
or quantity thing to me. Or maybe Alpha-POV? This might have already been
a couple of the naming suggestions early on too but I don't remember all
that. I guess there could be a problem with naming it as though it were
truly a beta version which obviously it is not.
Neither POV-Ray Trace 3.5 nor Mega-POV (Beta-POV... whichever :-)) will be
set aside by me whenever they are available. I still have 3.02 here. Kind
of goes without saying.
Brings up the question about whether people are actually keeping the two
POV's separate in the way they consider them when asking questions. As far
as emails to POV-Team members and such goes I'm saying.
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It seems to me that MegaPOV has become the unofficial equivalent of the Gimp
1.1 series or the Linux 2.3 series: the caveat-emptor-developement-version
for POV. MegaPOV has some really cool stuff in it, but these features
aren't always fully regression tested, etc, etc. I think it's a great way
to work. When I want to explore, I use MegaPOV. If it breaks, I don't
sweat it.
Rick
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 21:16:56 -0400, Nathan Kopp wrote:
(something or other...)
Nathan, this is totally off topic, but I wonder why you're posting in
charset Windows-1252 instead of something sane like latin1?
--
Ron Parker http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
My opinions. Mine. Not anyone else's.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nathan Kopp wrote:
> I recently installed a new version of IE and it did this (the default
> charset was "Western European (Windows)"). Now it should be more normal (it
> is named "Western European (ISO)").
>
> Is this better?
The header for this last message still reads -
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
--
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ron Parker" <ron### [at] povrayorg> wrote...
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 21:16:56 -0400, Nathan Kopp wrote:
> (something or other...)
>
> Nathan, this is totally off topic, but I wonder why you're posting in
> charset Windows-1252 instead of something sane like latin1?
Ok. I'm trying here. Really. I recently installed IE 5.5 and I think
that's what started it. I've tried to change the character set in the
options dialog boxes, but it appears to have no effect. I've tried "Western
European (Windows)," "Western European (ISO)," and "Latin 3 (ISO)" and they
all end up sending with the format "Windows-1252". Can anyone help?
-Nathan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nathan Kopp wrote:
> Ok. I'm trying here. Really. I recently installed IE 5.5 and I think
> that's what started it. I've tried to change the character set in the
> options dialog boxes, but it appears to have no effect. I've tried "Western
> European (Windows)," "Western European (ISO)," and "Latin 3 (ISO)" and they
> all end up sending with the format "Windows-1252". Can anyone help?
Sure. Which Linux distribution do you want?
;-)
-Mark Gordon
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
... or switch to Netscape :)
Alberto
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
