 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
See related images in povray.binary.images.
Are the black splotches a bug in MegaPOV? They do not show up if I
comment out the "smooth" keyword, and do not show up either with
straight POV-ray and are not related to the slope-dependant texture as I
get the same result with "color rgb <1,0,0>"
--
Francois Labreque | And a four year old carelessly banging on a toy
flabreque | piano is not only 'music', it's probably the last
@ | moment of 'artistic purity' they'll ever enjoy
videotron.ca | before outside influences start corrupting their
| expression. - Chris R.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It's a known problem, yes. I'm not knowledgeable as to why it is though.
Something about surface normals inverting and double illuminate maybe?
Oh yeah, there was a double illuminate "bug fix" done in version 0.5, I
looked it up but that's all I know.
Bob H.
"Francois Labreque" <fla### [at] videotron ca> wrote in message
news:3AAAE044.41A0BF18@videotron.ca...
> See related images in povray.binary.images.
>
> Are the black splotches a bug in MegaPOV? They do not show up if I
> comment out the "smooth" keyword, and do not show up either with
> straight POV-ray and are not related to the slope-dependant texture as I
> get the same result with "color rgb <1,0,0>"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Perhaps it's related to this effect?
http://iki.fi/warp/povVFAQ/TheShadowLineArtifact/
--
char*i="b[7FK@`3NB6>B:b3O6>:B:b3O6><`3:;8:6f733:>::b?7B>:>^B>C73;S1";
main(_,c,m){for(m=32;c=*i++-49;c&m?puts(""):m)for(_=(
c/4)&7;putchar(m),_--?m:(_=(1<<(c&3))-1,(m^=3)&3););} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> Perhaps it's related to this effect?
> http://iki.fi/warp/povVFAQ/TheShadowLineArtifact/
>
Yup, sure does. Anyways, I've moved my mountains further back so it
doesn't show that they're not smooth.
--
Francois Labreque | And a four year old carelessly banging on a toy
flabreque | piano is not only 'music', it's probably the last
@ | moment of 'artistic purity' they'll ever enjoy
videotron.ca | before outside influences start corrupting their
| expression. - Chris R.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bob H." wrote:
>
> It's a known problem, yes. I'm not knowledgeable as to why it is though.
> Something about surface normals inverting and double illuminate maybe?
> Oh yeah, there was a double illuminate "bug fix" done in version 0.5, I
> looked it up but that's all I know.
There was discussion about this, see "Heightfield smooth problem" in
this group, started 2000-06-13.
To avoid this, add double_illumination keyword to height field.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Vahur Krouverk wrote:
>
> "Bob H." wrote:
> >
> > It's a known problem, yes. I'm not knowledgeable as to why it is though.
> > Something about surface normals inverting and double illuminate maybe?
> > Oh yeah, there was a double illuminate "bug fix" done in version 0.5, I
> > looked it up but that's all I know.
>
> There was discussion about this, see "Heightfield smooth problem" in
> this group, started 2000-06-13.
> To avoid this, add double_illumination keyword to height field.
It didn't solve it in my case. I ended up doubling the size of the
.png, moving my hf further away and using distance fog so it doesn't
look jaggy.
--
Francois Labreque | And a four year old carelessly banging on a toy
flabreque | piano is not only 'music', it's probably the last
@ | moment of 'artistic purity' they'll ever enjoy
videotron.ca | before outside influences start corrupting their
| expression. - Chris R.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
