Hi folks.  Hope you can help.  The two boxes in this scene cast shadows onto the
usual plane when I render it with vanilla POV-Ray, but UberPOV does not cast a
shadow behind the one with the texture map.

Uber build 1.37.1.0-beta.8.msvc10.win64

scenes/textures/pigments/txtrmap.pov also renders differently, which makes me
think this is more likely to be a bug than my doing something dumb, but I will
take either.

Sorry not to chase this down and submit a patch myself, but the last time I
looked at this tracer it was called DKB!

Thanks in advance.  Scene follows:


camera { location <0, 5, -5> look_at 0}
plane {  y, -2 texture { pigment { checker colour rgb y colour rgb z} }}
light_source { <2.5, 5.5, -3> rgb 1 }

box { -1, 1
  texture { wood
    texture_map {
      [ 0 pigment { rgb 0.5 } ]
      [ 1 pigment { rgb 1 } ]
    } } }

box { 0 2 pigment {rgb x} }

Post a reply to this message

Am 23.09.2014 12:41, schrieb Ard:
> Hi folks.  Hope you can help.  The two boxes in this scene cast shadows onto the
> usual plane when I render it with vanilla POV-Ray, but UberPOV does not cast a
> shadow behind the one with the texture map.
>
> Uber build 1.37.1.0-beta.8.msvc10.win64
>
> scenes/textures/pigments/txtrmap.pov also renders differently, which makes me
> think this is more likely to be a bug than my doing something dumb, but I will
> take either.

For starters, I can confirm that this is entirely unintended, and 
therefore a bug indeed.

As an admittedly very counter-intuitive workaround, the shadows can be 
made to re-appear by making the pigment slightly transparent. (Any value 
larger than the adc_bailout value will do.)

Post a reply to this message

> Hi folks.  Hope you can help.  The two boxes in this scene cast shadows onto the
> usual plane when I render it with vanilla POV-Ray, but UberPOV does not cast a
> shadow behind the one with the texture map.
>
> Uber build 1.37.1.0-beta.8.msvc10.win64
>
> scenes/textures/pigments/txtrmap.pov also renders differently, which makes me
> think this is more likely to be a bug than my doing something dumb, but I will
> take either.
>
> Sorry not to chase this down and submit a patch myself, but the last time I
> looked at this tracer it was called DKB!
>
> Thanks in advance.  Scene follows:
>
>
> camera { location <0, 5, -5> look_at 0}
> plane {  y, -2 texture { pigment { checker colour rgb y colour rgb z} }}
> light_source { <2.5, 5.5, -3> rgb 1 }
>
> box { -1, 1
>    texture { wood
>      texture_map {
>        [ 0 pigment { rgb 0.5 } ]
>        [ 1 pigment { rgb 1 } ]
>      } } }
>
> box { 0 2 pigment {rgb x} }
>
>

I have rendered this scene with UberPov 1.37.0.0-beta.6.mscv10 win32bits 
and with pov-sse32 and there is no difference.




-- 
Do not judge my words, judge my actions.

---

http://www.avast.com

Post a reply to this message

> For starters, I can confirm that this is entirely unintended, and
> therefore a bug indeed.
>
> As an admittedly very counter-intuitive workaround, the shadows can be
> made to re-appear by making the pigment slightly transparent. (Any value
> larger than the adc_bailout value will do.)

Thank you!  And to FractRacer.  0.004 transparency added, a refresher in the
difference between rgbf and rgbt and why the former only brought part of my
shadows back, and I'm good.

Post a reply to this message

"Ard" <and### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > For starters, I can confirm that this is entirely unintended, and
> > therefore a bug indeed.
> >
> > As an admittedly very counter-intuitive workaround, the shadows can be
> > made to re-appear by making the pigment slightly transparent. (Any value
> > larger than the adc_bailout value will do.)
>
> Thank you!  And to FractRacer.  0.004 transparency added, a refresher in the
> difference between rgbf and rgbt and why the former only brought part of my
> shadows back, and I'm good.

I tried rendering the Blink-scene, with or without radiosity, and when rendered
with UberPOV beta 7 x64 the yellow ball has a shadow but looks strange with
radiosity on (I used 'no_cache'). UberPOV beta 8 x64 produces no shadow for the
yellow sphere no matter what, but when radiosity is on the result looks somewhat
better than with beta 7 (bar the lack of shadow).

A question about the Blink-addon: can I use it on a camera or a light?

@Clipka: I have 5 testrun png's, 400x300. If you want to take a look at them, or
the POV-file, just send me your e-mail address.

Post a reply to this message

"fomhorian" <fom### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I tried rendering the Blink-scene, with or without radiosity, and when rendered
> with UberPOV beta 7 x64 the yellow ball has a shadow but looks strange with
> radiosity on (I used 'no_cache'). UberPOV beta 8 x64 produces no shadow for the
> yellow sphere no matter what, but when radiosity is on the result looks somewhat
> better than with beta 7 (bar the lack of shadow).
>
> A question about the Blink-addon: can I use it on a camera or a light?
>
> @Clipka: I have 5 testrun png's, 400x300. If you want to take a look at them, or
> the POV-file, just send me your e-mail address.

I have to go grammar-nazi on myself (sorry):

-I rendered the Blink-scene, with and without radiosity...

Sorry but my OCD kicked in majortime when I reread my own message. :(

Post a reply to this message

Am 24.09.2014 15:49, schrieb fomhorian:
> "fomhorian" <fom### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> I tried rendering the Blink-scene, with or without radiosity, and when rendered
>> with UberPOV beta 7 x64 the yellow ball has a shadow but looks strange with
>> radiosity on (I used 'no_cache'). UberPOV beta 8 x64 produces no shadow for the
>> yellow sphere no matter what, but when radiosity is on the result looks somewhat
>> better than with beta 7 (bar the lack of shadow).
>>
>> A question about the Blink-addon: can I use it on a camera or a light?
>>
>> @Clipka: I have 5 testrun png's, 400x300. If you want to take a look at them, or
>> the POV-file, just send me your e-mail address.
>
> I have to go grammar-nazi on myself (sorry):
>
> -I rendered the Blink-scene, with and without radiosity...
>
> Sorry but my OCD kicked in majortime when I reread my own message. :(

Your message did come across ok, so no need to put up with grammar nazis.

I'd like you to send those test png's to Christoph at lipka minus koeln, 
followed by dot de. Thank you!

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 24.09.2014 15:49, schrieb fomhorian:
> > "fomhorian" <fom### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >> I tried rendering the Blink-scene, with or without radiosity, and when rendered
> >> with UberPOV beta 7 x64 the yellow ball has a shadow but looks strange with
> >> radiosity on (I used 'no_cache'). UberPOV beta 8 x64 produces no shadow for the
> >> yellow sphere no matter what, but when radiosity is on the result looks somewhat
> >> better than with beta 7 (bar the lack of shadow).
> >>
> >> A question about the Blink-addon: can I use it on a camera or a light?
> >>
> >> @Clipka: I have 5 testrun png's, 400x300. If you want to take a look at them, or
> >> the POV-file, just send me your e-mail address.
> >
> > I have to go grammar-nazi on myself (sorry):
> >
> > -I rendered the Blink-scene, with and without radiosity...
> >
> > Sorry but my OCD kicked in majortime when I reread my own message. :(
>
> Your message did come across ok, so no need to put up with grammar nazis.
>
> I'd like you to send those test png's to Christoph at lipka minus koeln,
> followed by dot de. Thank you!

Is that lipka-koeln, lipkaminuskoeln, lipkakoeln or?

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 24.09.2014 15:49, schrieb fomhorian:
> > "fomhorian" <fom### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >> I tried rendering the Blink-scene, with or without radiosity, and when rendered
> >> with UberPOV beta 7 x64 the yellow ball has a shadow but looks strange with
> >> radiosity on (I used 'no_cache'). UberPOV beta 8 x64 produces no shadow for the
> >> yellow sphere no matter what, but when radiosity is on the result looks somewhat
> >> better than with beta 7 (bar the lack of shadow).
> >>
> >> A question about the Blink-addon: can I use it on a camera or a light?
> >>
> >> @Clipka: I have 5 testrun png's, 400x300. If you want to take a look at them, or
> >> the POV-file, just send me your e-mail address.
> >
> > I have to go grammar-nazi on myself (sorry):
> >
> > -I rendered the Blink-scene, with and without radiosity...
> >
> > Sorry but my OCD kicked in majortime when I reread my own message. :(
>
> Your message did come across ok, so no need to put up with grammar nazis.
>
> I'd like you to send those test png's to Christoph at lipka minus koeln,
> followed by dot de. Thank you!

I think you should have received them by now. :)

Post a reply to this message

Am 24.09.2014 14:00, schrieb fomhorian:

> I tried rendering the Blink-scene, with or without radiosity, and when rendered
> with UberPOV beta 7 x64 the yellow ball has a shadow but looks strange with
> radiosity on (I used 'no_cache'). UberPOV beta 8 x64 produces no shadow for the
> yellow sphere no matter what, but when radiosity is on the result looks somewhat
> better than with beta 7 (bar the lack of shadow).

I hadn't tested blink with the no_cache radiosity yet, but yes - from 
the images you sent me, it seems seriously broken. But I have a hunch 
why that is, and if I'm right it should be easy to fix.

> A question about the Blink-addon: can I use it on a camera or a light?

No, not at the moment, and in the case of the camera it certainly won't 
be anytime soon - the internal architecture isn't suited to switch 
between cameras while rendering a single frame.

As for light sources, it's probably just a matter of finding a bit of 
time to implement support for blink.

Depending on what you want to achieve, you might be able to simulate 
blinking lights by enclosing the respective light sources in "no_image 
no_reflection no_radiosity" objects that blink just the other way around.

Post a reply to this message