 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I was just wondering if the new features and such, by and large, are
automatically used, or have to be hand coded into the the files. Err.. I
think I phrased that wrong. I'm not looking for specifics, I just wondered
if I'd see any difference rendering some of my scenes with a patched
version, without making changes to the scene itself. I know some of the
stuff would have to be included in the .pov file... OK, the heart of the
matter. Would I be able to render direct from Moray, and notice any
difference at all?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Krystian wrote:
>
> I was just wondering if the new features and such, by and large, are
> automatically used, or have to be hand coded into the the files. Err.. I
> think I phrased that wrong. I'm not looking for specifics, I just wondered
> if I'd see any difference rendering some of my scenes with a patched
> version, without making changes to the scene itself. I know some of the
> stuff would have to be included in the .pov file... OK, the heart of the
> matter. Would I be able to render direct from Moray, and notice any
> difference at all?
For the most part all patches maintain the same functionality as the
official version does. There are some things though that patch writers
change just to see what will happen that causes backward compatibility
problems. For example Nathan changed the way that layered filtered
pigments work and that caused some people some problems using existing
include files that use that feature. He did provide a fix for this by
allowing the #version directive to switch back to the previous method.
I have also heard that there are some problems with getting patched
versions to work directly from within Moray but I don't remember
specifics (see some of the past messages in the Moray group). If you
are going to use any of the new features in a patched version of POV-Ray
you are going to have to do it outside Moray anyway because Moray does
not offer any support for unofficial features.
With all of that aside a scene written for the official version should
in *almost* all cases render correctly in the patched versions.
--
Ken Tyler - 1200+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I think you are asking if a patched version will offer you any -improvement-
in your images without you having to add to your scene file. If so, the
answer is no.
"Krystian" <kgb### [at] X i2knet> wrote in message
news:3846f2b8@news.povray.org...
> I was just wondering if the new features and such, by and large, are
> automatically used, or have to be hand coded into the the files. Err.. I
> think I phrased that wrong. I'm not looking for specifics, I just wondered
> if I'd see any difference rendering some of my scenes with a patched
> version, without making changes to the scene itself. I know some of the
> stuff would have to be included in the .pov file... OK, the heart of the
> matter. Would I be able to render direct from Moray, and notice any
> difference at all?
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> For example Nathan changed the way that layered filtered
> pigments work and that caused some people some problems using existing
> include files that use that feature.
If I remember well, Nathan has also changed the way to calculate the
normals.
Could you tell me if the "official" way to calculate the normals is
buggy or
not. This mean that if it is buggy, the next release of the official
POVRAY
could be corrected. If this is not a bug and if Nathan do this for
another
reason, so I will know that the official and the Nathan release will
never
calculate in the same way :).
Thanks to light my mind.
Fabian.
Ken wrote:
>
> Krystian wrote:
> >
> > I was just wondering if the new features and such, by and large, are
> > automatically used, or have to be hand coded into the the files. Err.. I
> > think I phrased that wrong. I'm not looking for specifics, I just wondered
> > if I'd see any difference rendering some of my scenes with a patched
> > version, without making changes to the scene itself. I know some of the
> > stuff would have to be included in the .pov file... OK, the heart of the
> > matter. Would I be able to render direct from Moray, and notice any
> > difference at all?
>
> For the most part all patches maintain the same functionality as the
> official version does. There are some things though that patch writers
> change just to see what will happen that causes backward compatibility
> problems. For example Nathan changed the way that layered filtered
> pigments work and that caused some people some problems using existing
> include files that use that feature. He did provide a fix for this by
> allowing the #version directive to switch back to the previous method.
>
> I have also heard that there are some problems with getting patched
> versions to work directly from within Moray but I don't remember
> specifics (see some of the past messages in the Moray group). If you
> are going to use any of the new features in a patched version of POV-Ray
> you are going to have to do it outside Moray anyway because Moray does
> not offer any support for unofficial features.
>
> With all of that aside a scene written for the official version should
> in *almost* all cases render correctly in the patched versions.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler - 1200+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
> http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fabian Brau wrote:
>
> > For example Nathan changed the way that layered filtered
> > pigments work and that caused some people some problems using existing
> > include files that use that feature.
>
> If I remember well, Nathan has also changed the way to calculate the
> normals. Could you tell me if the "official" way to calculate the
> normals is buggy or not. This mean that if it is buggy, the next release
> of the official POVRAY could be corrected. If this is not a bug and if
> Nathan do this for another reason, so I will know that the official and
> the Nathan release will never calculate in the same way :).
The official version is buggy.
#declare My_Normal = normal { bumps .5 scale .5 }
#declare Texture =
texture {
pigment { rgb 1 }
normal { My_Normal scale 1.5 }
}
In the example the scale after My_Normal does not work correctly in the
official version. Nathan has fixed this in the unofficial version. This
bug will be fixed in POV-Ray v3.5.
--
Ken Tyler - 1200+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi Ken, you recently wrote in povray.windows:
>
> I have also heard that there are some problems with getting patched
> versions to work directly from within Moray but I don't remember
> specifics (see some of the past messages in the Moray group).
The SuperPatch has a bug that prevents it from sending the rendered
pixels to Moray, so you will not get a preview in Moray's windows.
There should be no other problems (the rest of what you and other
posters said still applies, of course).
- Lutz
email : lut### [at] stmuccom
Web : http://www.stmuc.com/moray
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Dec 1999 11:17:42 GMT, Lutz Kretzschmar wrote:
>Hi Ken, you recently wrote in povray.windows:
>
>>
>> I have also heard that there are some problems with getting patched
>> versions to work directly from within Moray but I don't remember
>> specifics (see some of the past messages in the Moray group).
>The SuperPatch has a bug that prevents it from sending the rendered
>pixels to Moray, so you will not get a preview in Moray's windows.
>There should be no other problems (the rest of what you and other
>posters said still applies, of course).
It might be fixed in the 3.1g superpatch; I can't remember if I got
Lutz's fix in there or not. Could someone with Moray and the 3.1g
superpatch give it a try?
--
These are my opinions. I do NOT speak for the POV-Team.
The superpatch: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/superpatch/
My other stuff: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill DeWitt <the### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
: I think you are asking if a patched version will offer you any -improvement-
: in your images without you having to add to your scene file. If so, the
: answer is no.
Radiosity might be an exception to this.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Unfortunately, Moray generally won't let you choose values that will give
the best results for radiosity (for example, it won't allow a radiosity
trace depth of greater than 2).
-Nathan
Nieminen Juha <war### [at] punarastascstutfi> wrote ...
> Bill DeWitt <the### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> : I think you are asking if a patched version will offer you
any -improvement-
> : in your images without you having to add to your scene file. If so, the
> : answer is no.
>
> Radiosity might be an exception to this.
>
> --
> main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
> ):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi Nathan Kopp, you recently wrote in povray.windows:
> Unfortunately, Moray generally won't let you choose values that will give
> the best results for radiosity (for example, it won't allow a radiosity
> trace depth of greater than 2).
Hmmm, I usually take limits like that from the docs. If you have any
specific limits that are wrong I'd love to hear about them.
Unfortunately I hardly ever get to use Moray, so I really depend on
the feedback from users like that comment to correct it.
- Lutz
email : lut### [at] stmuccom
Web : http://www.stmuc.com/moray
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
