POV-Ray

The Persistence of Vision Raytracer (POV-Ray).

This is the legacy Bug Tracking System for the POV-Ray project. Bugs listed here are being migrated to our github issue tracker. Please refer to that for new reports or updates to existing ones on this system.

IDCategoryTask TypeReported InPrioritySeveritySummary  descStatusProgressDue In Version
70PhotonsUnimp. Feature/TODO3.70 beta 34LowHighload/save photons should be controlled via command lineTracked on GitHub
0%
Task Description

Just like radiosity load/save, the photon mapping load/save mechanism should be moved to the frontend and controlled via command-line switch, instead of being SDL-driven in the backend.

4Subsurface ScatteringUnimp. Feature/TODO3.70 beta 32Very LowLowIntegrate Subsurface Scattering with standard lighting ...Tracked on GitHub
90%
Future release Task Description

Subsurface Scattering still uses its own rudimentary code to compute illumination from classic light sources; this must be changed to use the standard light source & shadow handling code, to add support for non-trivial light sources (e.g. spotlights, cylindrical lights, area lights), partially-transparent shadowing objects etc.

6Subsurface ScatteringUnimp. Feature/TODO3.70 beta 32DeferLowIntegrate Subsurface Scattering with PhotonsTracked on GitHub
0%
Future release Task Description

Subsurface scattering must be made photon-aware.

222Geometric PrimitivesDefinite Bug3.70 RC3Very LowLowincorrect render of CSG merge with radiosityTracked on GitHub
0%
Future release Task Description

The problem arises when I am trying to trace a radiosity scene without conventional lighting that has a GSG merge object. There are a coincident surfaces, but these surfaces are first merged, then the texture applied. The texture is a simple solig color non-transfluent pigment, default normal, default finish etc..

Problem consists when adding antialiasing, changing resolution, changing camera view-point etc.; when I replace merge with union, the problem disappeared.

The scene was checked on two different machines with different versions of POV-Ray:

  1. Gentoo Linux, kernel 2.6.39-r3, i686 Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 2.80GHz GenuineIntel, 2G RAM (this is Dell PowerEdge 2650 server with 2 dual-core Intel Xeon MP processors); Persistence of Vision™ Ray Tracer Version 3.7.0.RC3 (i686-pc-linux-gnu-g++ 4.5.3 @ i686-pc-linux-gnu)
  2. Gentoo Linux, kernel 2.6.37-r4, x86_64 AMD Athlon™ X2 Dual Core Processor BE-2350, 2G RAM (non-branded machine); Persistence of Vision™ Ray Tracer Version 3.6.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-g++ 4.4.4 @ x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)

(scene has been adapted slightly to be rendered with 3.6, the adaptation was to change “emission” with “ambient” and replace gamma “srgb” with “2.2”)

Both machines generate similar images.

The attachment is an archive containing sources of minimal scenes with these problems, and sample pictures I generated from them on my machines.

230User interfaceFeature Request3.70 RC3Very LowLowImproved handling of animationsTracked on GitHub
0%
Task Description

October to middle November, I prodduced a 5 minutes video mainly py POVRAY.

Here a part of the video.ini file

#

# szenes based on games.pov
#

#game-pat
#Initial_Frame=450 - time scale 1000 - 30 seconds
#Final_Frame=899
#Initial_Clock=-12500
#Final_Clock=17500

#game-lost - time scale 1000 - 22 seconds
#Initial_Frame=0
#Final_Frame=659
#Initial_Clock=2000
#Final_Clock=24000

#game-lost - time scale 3000 - 12 seconds - fast through the night
#Initial_Frame=0
#Final_Frame=359
#Initial_Clock=24000
#Final_Clock=60000

#book-cover
#clock=64000

#game-sunrise - time scale 1000 - 35 seconds
#Initial_Frame=0
#Final_Frame=1049
#Initial_Clock=60000
#Final_Clock=95000

Now imagine all the problems:

One computer crashes often because of thermal problems.
Last picture rendere 487.

Now calculate the setings, that this computer continues the task at 487

Or 2 computers should render a scene.

Sounds very easy. Something like computer 1 makes 0..499 computer 2 makes 500..999.

But the computers are different in speed and the pictures are
very different in computation time.

So it would be best

computer 1: 0 to 999
computer 2: 999 to 0

They would meet in the middle, where ever this middle is.

So it would be much easier with

#game-sunrise - time scale 1000 - 35 seconds
Initial_Frame=0
Final_Frame=1049
Initial_Clock=60000
Final_Clock=95000
Initial_Task=487
Final_Task=1049

So I have not to calculate the exact clock seting,
when a computer sould continue a task after crashing at picture 487

#game-sunrise - time scale 1000 - 35 seconds
Initial_Frame=0
Final_Frame=1049
Initial_Clock=60000
Final_Clock=95000
Initial_Task=1049
Final_Task=0

This would be the reverse calcualtion order.
Starting with picture 1049 and going down 1048..1047

8RadiosityUnimp. Feature/TODO3.70 beta 32DeferLowImprove Radiosity "Cross-Talk" Rejection in CornersTracked on GitHub
0%
Future release Task Description

Near concave edges, radiosity samples may be re-used at a longer distance away from the edge than towards the edge; there is code in place to ensure this, but it only works properly where two surfaces meet roughly rectangularly, while failing near the junction of three surfaces or non-rectangular edges, potentially causing “cross-talk”.

It should be investigated how the algorithm can be improved or replaced to better cope with non-trivial geometry.

264PhotonsUnimp. Feature/TODO3.70 RC6DeferLowImprove precision of photon direction informationTracked on GitHub
0%
Task Description

In the photons map, the direction of each photon is stored as separate latitude & longitude angles (encoded in one byte each), causing the longitudinal direction component’s precision to be unnecessarily high for directions close to the “poles” (Y axis); in addition, encoded value -128 is never used. For better overall precision as well as precision homogenity, the following scheme could be used instead:

  • Encode the latitude (-pi/2 to +pi/2) into LatCount=226 distinct values (= 256*sqrt(pi)/2) rounded to the next even number) from 0 to LatCount-1 using
latCode = (int)((LatCount-1) * (lat/M_PI + 0.5) + 0.5)
  • For each latitude code, define a specific number of encodable longitude values, LngCount[latCode] = approx. cos(lat)*pi*65536/(2*LatCount); this can be a pre-computed table, and may need slight tweaking for optimum use of the code space. Encode the longitude (-pi to +pi) into a value from 0 to (LngCount[lat]-1) using
LC = LngCount[latCode];
lngCode = (int)(LC * (lng/(2*M_PI) + 0.5) + 0.5) % LC;
  • Besides LngCount[latCode], also store the sum of LngCount[i] with i < latCode as LatBase[latCode]; encode the direction as
dirCode = LatBase[latCode] + lngCode;
  • For decoding, a simple lookup from a precomputed list of directions could be used (2^15 entries, i.e. one hemisphere, will suffice). To conserve space, direction vectors could be scaled by (2^N-1) and stored as (N+1)-bit signed integer triples rather than floating point values; due to the limited precision of the lat/long information, 8 bits per coordinate might be enough, giving a table size of 96k. A full double-precision table would require 786k instead.
44RadiosityFeature RequestAllVery LowLowImprove Normals Handling in RadiosityTracked on GitHub
0%
Future release Task Description

Currently, radiosity does not make use of the fact that pertubed normals would theoretically just require a different weighting of already-sampled rays, leading to the following issues:

  • Honoring normal pertubations in radiosity leads to an increased number of samples, slowing down sample cache lookup.
  • The increased number of samples is generated from a proportionally higher number of sample rays, slowing down pretrace even further.
  • Low-amplitude pertubations tend to be smoothed out; “reviving” these is only possible by increasing the general sample density.
  • Handling of multi-layered textures with different normal pertubations is currently poorly implemented.

As a solution, I propose to store for each radiosity sample not only the resulting illumination for a perfectly unpertubed normal, but from the same set of sample rays also compute the illumination for an additional set of about a dozen standardized pertubed-normal directions, and interpolate among these when computing the radiosity-based illumination for a particular point that has a pertubed normal.

For backwards compatibility, this method of dealing with pertubed normals in radiosity might be activated by a different value for the “normal” statement in the radiosity block, say, “normal 2”.

41OtherFeature Request3.70 beta 32Very LowLowimprove command-line parsing error messagesTracked on GitHub
0%
Task Description

POV-Ray 3.6, upon encountering problems when parsing command line and/or .ini file options, would quote the offending option in the error message.

POV-Ray 3.7 currently just reports that there is some problem with the command line, without providing any details. I suggest changing this, as the information may be helpful at times.

248Parser/SDLFeature RequestNot applicableVery LowLowImplement mechanism to compute direction of a splineTracked on GitHub
0%
Future release Task Description

The SDL currently provides no way to compute the exact direction of a spline at a given location, even though mathematically this is a piece of cake: The first-order derivative of any spline section gives you the “speed” as a vector function, and is trivial to compute for polynomial splines (which are behind all spline types that POV-Ray supports); the normalized “speed” vector, in turn, gives the “pure” direction.

For exact direction/speed computations, I propose to extend the SDL invocation syntax as follows to allow for evaluating a spline’s derivative:

    SPLINE_INVOCATION:
        SPLINE_IDENTIFIER ( FLOAT [, SPLINE_TYPE] [, FLOAT] )

or

    SPLINE_INVOCATION:
        SPLINE_IDENTIFIER ( FLOAT [, FLOAT] [, SPLINE_TYPE] )

where the second FLOAT will specify the order of derivative to evaluate (defaulting to 0). In order to compute the position, direction, and acceleration of an object traveling along a certain spline, one could then for instance use:

    #declare S        = spline { ... }
    #declare Pos      = S(Time);
    #declare VSpeed   = S(Time,1);
    #declare VAccel   = S(Time,2);
    #declare Dir      = vnormalize(VSpeed);
    #declare Speed    = vlength(VSpeed);
    #declare AccelDir = vnormalize(VAccel);
    #declare GForce   = vlength(VAccel) / 9.81;

Alternatively, a mechanism may be devised to create a spline representing another spline’s derivative; however, it would be debatable whether the syntax should be parameter-like (being an added information that could be overridden again when creating other splines from such a derived spline), or operation-like (converting the spline), and in the latter case how it should affect spline type (and consequently control points); so the spline invocation parameter approach might be more straightforward, with less potential surprises for the user.

278BackendFeature Request3.70 RC7Very LowMediumImplement Lens Flare RenderingTracked on GitHub
0%
Task Description

Currently POV-Ray does not support rendering lens flare effects, however, they can be simulated using a macro (include file) by Chris Colefax.

I would like to suggest adding a feature to POV-Ray to support lens effects “natively” since

  • as far as I know the macro has been designed for POV-Ray 3.1 so with each new POV-Ray version it gets more likely that this macro does not work properly any more
  • the macro does not work when rendering with radiosity, probably because the macro creates the lens effect by using a pigment with a high ambient value (which is ignored by POV-Ray 3.7’s radiosity algorithm).

Additionally, the macro is not quite easy to employ because

  • it needs to know the exact camera parameters (location etc.) and defines an own camera itself so any important camera information has to be stored if the effect has to work as expected
  • it does not (actually cannot) take into account that objects may (partially) hide the lens effect
  • reflections and refractions (of light sources) cannot be combined with it properly - the user would have to calculate both the point where the reflected/refracted light source can be observed and the shape it then has due to distortion, and in more complex scenes such computations are nearly impossible in SDL.

I would suggest integrating such a lens flare rendering feature with the “looks like” mechanism you already have for light sources. Several parameters that can currently be set for the macro - including effect brightness and intensity, lens options and whether to create a flare at all - could be set for the light source.

Then POV-Ray could store the location and colour of each ray that finally intersected the “looks like” object of a light source and, having finished the main rendering, from that data compute a partially transparent “lens flare layer” eventually mixed into the rendered image. By this, the above mentioned problems could be avoided:

  • an object fully or partially intersecting a light source’s “looks like” object would also reduce the number of pixels used to create a flare - and therefore reduce that flare until fully hiding it
  • the same goes for reflected and/or refracted versions of the “looks like” object
  • the camera’s location and other properties would be used automatically
  • and finally, as a feature supported by POV-Ray itself, there would be neither compatibility issues nor problems like the effect not fitting together with radiosity.

Do not get me wrong, I would not expect POV-Ray to really calculate intersections that naturally happen in a camera lens, causing lens flares. Effects looking appropriate can actually be created just in 2D space (as some graphics programs do support) so the work to be done would, as far as I have any overview, be:

  • storing, as mentioned above, the relevant data for pixels showing “looks like” objects
  • calculating a lens flare from that data after the render has finished
  • overlaying the rendered image with the newly created lens effect.
334Texture/Material/FinishFeature Request3.70 releaseVery LowLowHLS colorsTracked on GitHub
0%
Task Description

It would be nice to be able to specify colors in HLS as well as RGB.

Currently, you can use a macor to convert individual colors. But this does not work in color_maps where you want smooth gradations/interpolations between two or several colors.

129Parser/SDLFeature Request3.70 beta 37aDeferVery LowHash arraysTracked on GitHub
0%
Future release Task Description

Currently, array items may only be referenced by their index number (an integer). It would be nice to also be able to assign string values as array indexes, as in other scripting languages.

237User interfaceDefinite Bug3.70 RC3DeferVery LowGlitch in displaying rendered pixels and percentageTracked on GitHub
0%
Task Description

When rendering in multiple passes (radiosity in my case), the elapsed pixels and percentage, written to terminal
are first displayed like this:
Rendered 126202 of 360000 pixels (35%)
Then on the second stage the output text becomes shorter and you see
Rendered 25344 of 360000 pixels (7%)%)
The contents of the previous status are not erased, so the longer text persists (note the duplicate percentage sign and closing parenthesis). Such a glitch could have more drastic effect in rare cases.

I’m running
Version 3.7.0.RC3 (g++ 4.6.2 x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)
compiled for the Arch Linux package.

263Parser/SDLFeature Request3.70 RC6Very LowLowFunctions and patterns for finish variationsTracked on GitHub
0%
Task Description

the pigment {} and normals {} sections allow spatial variation of color, transparency and normal map. On the other hand, the specular parameter is a fixed scalar. This removes many possibilities. For instance, specularity could vary in space (speckles of oil or water on a surface, worn-out finish, having specularity reduce where the pigment transparency increases) and have color components. With current settings, the light’s color is simply multiplied by the scalar specified by “specular”, whereas multiplying each component with different color could create diverse effects (the “metallic” keyword already acts similar to duplicating the specular color from the pigment). The syntax could be exactly the same as for the pigment (all the patterns, color maps, image maps and functions would apply, allowing reuse of most of the code).

The effect can now be partially faked by having patterned textures, but it requires a very complex code and the lack of layering of patterned textures makes it difficult to vary the specularity and pigment separately.

In a similar way, roughness and brilliance could also vary in space.

Doing the same for varying reflectivity would be more difficult, as it has angular dependence and possibilty of Fresnel calculation, but it could at least be a full color instead of a simple scalar multiplier. For instance, having a blue surface that reflects only red component of the light should not be impossible.

I think at least part of this functionality actually makes the scene description language more uniform and self-consistent.

79Source codeFeature Request3.70 beta 35aVery LowLowFull-Featured Test-Scene to check the correctness of po...Tracked on GitHub
0%
Future release Task Description

Hi,

it would be nice if there exists a test scene (not a benchmark) which has a high coverage of povray source and can be used as correctness validation of povray. It schould be produce an image which can be compared to a golden reference image.

It may be also possible to create a regression test suite which does automatic comparision of the render results.

50Runtime errorPossible Bug3.70 beta 32Very LowMediumFrequent segfaults with photon scenesTracked on GitHub
0%
Task Description

I observe frequent segfaults with POV-Ray 3.7 betas when rendering scenes using photons:

  • Debian Linux 4.0r5 “etch” for AMD64
  • AMD Phenom X4 9650 2.3GHz, 6 GB RAM
  • POV-Ray compiled with Intel icpc 11.0

Segfaults are sporadic but frequent (occurring in roughly 50% of all photon renders).

227Refactoring/CleanupUnimp. Feature/TODO3.70 RC3Very LowHighFixed Vector LimitationsTracked on GitHub
0%
Task Description

See this documentation entry for more details.

306Subsurface ScatteringDefinite Bug3.70 RC7Very LowHighfinish subsurface block before global_settings subsurfa...Tracked on GitHub
0%
3.71 release Task Description

The following scene causes a crash:

sphere {
  <0,0,0>, 1
  finish { subsurface { translucency 1.0 } }
}

global_settings {
  subsurface { }
}
301OtherDefinite Bug3.70 RC7Very LowLowFallback to default image size causes wrong values to b...Tracked on GitHub
50%
Task Description

When resolution is not specified (neither via POVRAY.INI nor via QUICKRES.INI nor via command line or custom .ini file), random values are displayed for image resolution in the Image Output Options message output. (The actual render will be performed at the default size of 160×120 pixels though.)

127Parser/SDLFeature Request3.70 beta 37aVery LowLowExpandable arraysTracked on GitHub
0%
Future release Task Description

Currently, arrays are of a fixed size. You can’t add or remove items to/from an array. I think it would like arrays to be expandable with no fixed and pre-determined size.

311User interfacePossible Bug3.70 releaseVery LowLowElepsed time error on very long rendersTracked on GitHub
0%
3.71 release Task Description

On a very long render, around day 24, the elapsed time display becomes incorrect, showing 4294967272d 4294967272h 4294967272m 4294967272s.

Found on Windows 7 64 bits and reproduced on Windows 7 32 bits.
NOT reported on other platforms.

310EditorFeature Request3.70 RC7Very LowLowEditor should remember bookmarksTracked on GitHub
0%
Task Description

Now the editor remembers only the cursor positions of the loaded files when starting a new PR session. It would be more friendly to remember whether the window was split or not, as well as the bookmarks.

183Texture/Material/FinishPossible Bug3.70 beta 40Very LowLowcutaway_textures broken with child unionsTracked on GitHub
50%
Future release Task Description

When using cutaway_textures in a CSG object that has union children, results are not as expected; instead, surfaces in the union children that have no explicit texture will be rendered with the default texture instead. This is not the case for e.g. difference children.

Example:

#default { texture { pigment { rgb 1 } } }

camera {
  right x*image_width/image_height
  location  <0,1.5,-4>
  look_at   <0,1,0>
}

light_source { <500,500,-500> color rgb 1 }

#declare U = union {
  sphere { <0,-0.1,-1>, 0.3 }
  sphere { <0, 0.1,-1>, 0.3 pigment { color red 1 } }
}

intersection {
  sphere { <0,0,0>, 1 pigment { color green 1 } }
  object { U }
  cutaway_textures
  rotate y*90
}

When declaring U as an intersection instead, the results are as expected, with the surface of the first sphere in U being rendered with the texture defined in the outer intersection.

256Texture/Material/FinishFeature Request3.70 RC6Very LowLowCSG texturing modesTracked on GitHub
0%
Task Description

At times, the current method of specifying texture for
CSG components and compounds is restricting. The issue
pops up now and then, see e.g.

http://news.povray.org/povray.pov4.discussion.general/thread/%3Cweb.4799def8e1857b77c150d4c10%40news.povray.org%3E/

http://news.povray.org/povray.general/thread/%3Cweb.4fc892634f065c00e32b83540@news.povray.org%3E/

http://news.povray.org/povray.general/thread/%3Cweb.5073e9f7dae1fbb2d97ee2b90%40news.povray.org%3E/

There should be a new CSG option “texture_mode” or similar, which could take
one of the following values:

preserve (the current behavior)
cutaway (the current behavior when specifying cutaway_textures)
override (replace all individual textures with compound texture)
layer (layer the compound texture over the existing textures)

and possibly, more involved

modify/merge: if both element and compund textures are simple, i.e.
not layered or mapped, override all default values of the element
textures with the values from the compound texture. The idea would
be to, e.g., have the elements already pigmented but then apply
common normal or finish properties.

302OtherPossible Bug3.70 RC7Very LowLowconfusing error message when .ini file cannot be parsedTracked on GitHub
0%
Task Description

When a command-line parameter in an .ini file cannot be parsed (such as “+a.3”), POV-Ray reports a “Problem with setting”, quoting the command line, rather than indicating that the problem occurred in an .ini file. This leads the user to think that the problem is with the command line itself, unnecessarily confusing him.

42OtherDefinite Bug3.70 beta 32Very LowMediumcommand line parameters are not parsed properly on UnixTracked on GitHub
0%
Task Description

POV-Ray does not follow common practice on command-line handling; for instance:

povray +i"My File"

entered on a Unix shell would be passed to POV-Ray as

povray
+iMy File

(each line representing a distinct parameter here), which POV-Ray would further dissect, interpreting it as

povray
+iMy
File

To achieve the desired effect, one would actually have to quote the string twice:

povray +i"'My File'"

which the shell would translate to

povray
+i'My File'

which POV-Ray would interpret as

povray
+iMy File

In both cases, this is obviously not what a Unix user would expect.

The further dissecting of individual command-line parameters may have had its valid roots in the peculiarities of DOS’ command-line handling, but to my knowledge all major contemporary operating systems follow a concept akin to Unix, passing a list of parameters instead of a monolithic command line, and burdening the respective command shells with the task of dissecting command lines into parameters.

Therefore I suggest to disable this anachronistic feature in favor of contemporary standards; a compiler flag might be used to allow for easy re-enabling of the feature, for compiling POV-Ray on exotic targets.

- edit -

It has been pointed out that the described behaviour differs from 3.6, so I’m promoting this to a bug and changing the title.

229Image formatFeature Request3.70 RC3Very LowLowClock value into EXIF data for PNGTracked on GitHub
0%
Task Description

The best time for a picture....

I set the day time and so the position of the sun by “clock=”

Normal I document my source very good, but this time,
I forgot the clock seting for the picture of my book cover.

So I would find it very practicall to put the clock value
and other setings for rendering
into EXIF data of the picture.

275Light sourceDefinite Bug3.70 RC7Very LowLowcircular area lights exhibit anisotropyTracked on GitHub
50%
Future release Task Description

circular area lights exhibit some anisotropy, being brighter along the diagonals than on average, as can be demonstrated with the following scene:

//+w800 +h800
#version 3.7;
global_settings{assumed_gamma 1}
plane{-z,-10 pigment{rgb 1} finish{ambient 0 brilliance 0}}
disc{0,z,10000,0.5}
camera{orthographic location z look_at 10*z up y*12 right x*12}
light_source{-10*z rgb 10 area_light 10*x 10*y 257 257 adaptive 4 circular}
142Texture/Material/FinishFeature Request3.70 beta 37aVery LowLowcamera_view pigment from MegaPOVTracked on GitHub
0%
Future release Task Description

I probably don’t have to explain why the camera_view pigment in MegaPOV was important, but I will list some reasons anyway:

1) post-processing could be performed in-scene
2) new types of focal blur effects could be created
3) feedback fractals were possible

I’m sure there are many others, as this is one of those features that has undetermined potential!

281Geometric PrimitivesFeature Request3.70 RC7DeferLowBug in rendering of Bézier patchesTracked on GitHub
0%
Future release Task Description

In version 3.7.0.RC7.msvc10.win64, there is a bug in rendering Bézier patches in which four points (along one edge) are all the same point.

The rendering can be seen here:
http://i.imgur.com/eq2UIXR.png
[Edit: See attachment for the rendering]

As you can see, there is a visible unwanted artifact in the corner of each patch. The two patches shown are essentially the same, except with the 4×4 matrix of vertices transposed (just to demonstrate that simply transposing it didn’t fix it).

Expected rendering is a smooth surface without the artifact.

Below is the code used to render the above example.

#version 3.7;

global_settings { assumed_gamma 1.0 }

camera {

  location <45, 31, -10>
  look_at <40, 21, 200>
  right x*image_width/image_height

}

light_source {

  <660, 300, -525>
  color rgb 1

}

Example 1: First point in each row is the same point
bicubic_patch {
type 1 flatness 0.001
u_steps 4 v_steps 4
<32.2168, -23.78125, 0>, <34.4968, -23.78125, 0>, <35.2168, -23.78125, -0.72>, <35.2168, -23.78125, -3>,
<32.2168, -23.78125, 0>, <34.4968, -22.10256, 0>, <35.2168, -21.57244, -0.72>, <35.2168, -21.57244, -3>,
<32.2168, -23.78125, 0>, <33.9709, -21.55577, 0>, <34.52483, -20.85299, -0.72>, <34.52483, -20.85299, -3>,
<32.2168, -23.78125, 0>, <32.30556, -21.50298, 0>, <32.33359, -20.78352, -0.72>, <32.33359, -20.78352, -3>
rotate 180*x scale 1.4
translate ←5, 0, 0>
pigment { color <1, 0, 0> }
}
Example 2: First row is all the same point
bicubic_patch {

  type 1 flatness 0.001
  u_steps 4 v_steps 4
  <32.2168, -23.78125, 0>, <32.2168, -23.78125, 0>, <32.2168, -23.78125, 0>, <32.2168, -23.78125, 0>,
  <34.4968, -23.78125, 0>, <34.4968, -22.10256, 0>, <33.9709, -21.55577, 0>, <32.30556, -21.50298, 0>,
  <35.2168, -23.78125, -0.72>, <35.2168, -21.57244, -0.72>, <34.52483, -20.85299, -0.72>, <32.33359, -20.78352, -0.72>,
  <35.2168, -23.78125, -3>, <35.2168, -21.57244, -3>, <34.52483, -20.85299, -3>, <32.33359, -20.78352, -3>
  rotate 180*x
  scale 1.4
  pigment { color <1, 1, 0> }

}

321OtherDefinite Bug3.70 releaseVery LowLowbounding threshold inconsistencyTracked on GitHub
90%
Task Description

User reported documentation inconsistency. Investigation led to the discovery of a bug in the setting of the current default value.

~source/frontend/renderfrontend.cpp reports the value “3” while ~source/backend/scene/scene.cpp sets a default value of “1”

Before for addressing this issue, are there any thoughts as to what the default value should be?

85OtherFeature RequestNot applicableDeferLowAspect ratio issuesTracked on GitHub
0%
Future release Task Description

Background

When rendering an image, there are actually three aspect ratios involved:

1) The aspect ratio of the camera, set with the up and right vectors.

2) The aspect ratio of the rendered image, set with the +W and +H parameters.

3) The aspect ratio of the pixels in the intended target medium. While this is very often 1:1, it’s definitely not always so (anamorphic images are common in some media, such as DVDs).

The aspect ratio of the camera does not (and arguably should not, although some people might disagree) define the aspect ratio of the image resolution, but the aspect ratio of the image as shown on the final medium. In other words, it defines how the image should be displayed, not what the resolution of the image should be.

This of course means that the aspect ratio of the target medium pixels has to be taken into account when specifying the image resolution. If the target medium pixels are not 1:1 (eg. when rendering for a medium with non-square pixels, or when rendering an anamorphic image eg. for a DVD), the proper resolution has to be specified so that the aspect ratio of the displayed image remains the same as the one specified in the camera block.

This isn’t generally a problem. It usually goes like “my screen is physically 4:3, so I design my scene for that aspect ratio, but the resolution of my screen is mxn which is not 4:3, but that doesn’t matter; I just render with +Wm +Hn and I get a correct image for my screen”.

However, problems start when someone renders an image using an image aspect ratio / pixel aspect ratio combination which does not match the camera aspect ratio. By far the most common situation is rendering a scene with a 4:3 camera for a screen with square pixels but with a non-4:3 resolution (most typically 16:9 or 16:10 nowadays). The image will be horizontally
stretched.

In a few cases the effect is the reverse: The scene (and thus the camera) has been designed for some less-typical aspect ratio, eg. a cinematic 2.4:1 aspect ratio, but then someone renders the image with a 4:3 resolution. The resulting image will be horizontally squeezed.

In a few cases this is actually the correct and desired behavior, ie. when you are really rendering the image in an anamorphic format (eg. for a DVD). However, often it’s an inadverted mistake.

Some people argue that this default behavior should be changed. However, there are also good arguments why it should not be changed. Some argue that POV-Ray should have more features (at the SDL level, at the command-line level or both) to control this behavior.

There are several possible situations, which is why this issue is so complicated. These situations may include:

- The scene author doesn’t really care what aspect ratio is used to render the image, even if it means that additional parts of the scenery become visible or parts are cropped away when using a different aspect ratio than what he used.

In this case the choice of camera aspect ratio should be up to the person who renders the image, and thus selectable on the command-line. However, he should have an easy choice of how changing the aspect ratio affects the image: Should it extend the viewing range, or should it crop part of it, compared to the original?

And this, of course, while still making it possible to render for an anamorphic format.

- The author wants to support different aspect ratios, but he wants to control precisely how it affects the composition of the image. Maybe he never wants anything cropped away within certain limits, but instead the image should always be extended in whichever direction is necessary due to the aspect ratio. Or maybe he wants to allow cropping the image, but only up to a certain point. Or whatever.

In this case the choice of camera aspect ratio should be up to the author, and thus selectable in the scene file, while still allowing some changes from the command-line.

- The author designed his scene for a precise aspect ratio and nothing else, and doesn’t want the image to be rendered in any other aspect ratio. Maybe he used some very peculiar aspect ratio (eg. something like 1:2, ie. twice as tall as wide) for artistic composition reasons, and wants the image rendered with that aspect ratio, period.

Perhaps the author should be able to completely forbid the change of camera aspect ratio in the command-line.

Of course anamorphic rendering should still be supported for targets with a different pixel aspect ratio.

Possible solution

This solution does not necessarily address all the problems described above perfectly, but could be a good starting point for more ideas:

Add a way to specify in the camera block minimum and maximum limits for the horizontal and vertical viewing angles (and if any of them is unspecified, it’s unlimited). Of course for this to be useful in any way, there should also be a way to change the camera and pixel aspect ratios from the command line.

The idea with this is that the author of the scene can use these angle limits to define a rectangular “protected zone” at the center of the view, using the minimum angle limits. In other words, no matter how the camera aspect ratio is modified, the horizontal and/or vertical viewing angles will never get smaller than these minimum angles. This ensures that the image will never be cropped beyond a certain limit, only extended either horizontally or vertically to ensure that the “protected zone” always remains fully visible regardless of what aspect ratio is used.

The maximum angles can be used for the reverse: They ensure that no scenery beyond a certain point will ever become visible, no matter what aspect ratio is used. This can be used to make sure that unmodelled parts of the scene never come into view. Thus the image will always be cropped to ensure this, depending on the aspect ratio.

I’m not completely sure what should be done if both minimum and maximum angles are specified, and the user specifies an aspect ratio which would break these limits. An error message could be a possibility. At least it would be a way for the author to make sure his scene is never rendered using an aspect ratio he doesn’t want. He can use these angle limits to give some leeway how much the aspect ratio can change, to an extent, or he could even force a specific aspect ratio and nothing else (by specifying that both the minimum and maximum angles are the same).

So in short:

- Add a “minimum/maximum horizontal/vertical angles” feature to the camera block. These can be used to define a “protected zone” in the image which must not be breached by command-line options.

- Add a command-line syntax to change the camera aspect ratio (which automatically obeys the “protected zone” settings). Could perhaps give an error message if the command-line options break the limits in the scene camera.

- Add a command-line syntax to specify a pixel aspect ratio other than 1:1. This can be used to render anamorphic versions of the image on purpose (iow. not by mistake).

This can probably be made backwards-compatible in that if none of these new features are used, the behavior could be the same as currently (or at least similar).

328User interfaceDefinite Bug3.70 releaseVery LowMediumAscii char '=' in filenames causes command line parsing...Tracked on GitHub
0%
Task Description

The following command fails with parsing error:
povray +OqXfFbD0Vg5XjZgi5sOefkvdF_oCGrZ1ChVhrQw==.png +IqXfFbD0Vg5XjZgi5sOefkvdF_oCGrZ1ChVhrQw==.pov +W1000 +H1000

The following command succeeds:
povray +OqXfFbD0Vg5XjZgi5sOefkvdF_oCGrZ1ChVhrQw.png +IqXfFbD0Vg5XjZgi5sOefkvdF_oCGrZ1ChVhrQw.pov +W1000 +H1000

Any option that gets a filename as parameter will fail if it contains ‘=’.

It is a regression, as it worked fine with 3.6.

60Geometric PrimitivesDefinite Bug3.70 beta 34Very LowMediumArtifacts using prism in CSGTracked on GitHub
0%
Future release Task Description

Using prisms in intersecion or difference CSG objects may cause artifacts in POV-Ray 3.6.2 as well as 3.7.0.beta.34, as demonstrated by the following code:


camera {
  right    -x
  up        y*image_height/image_width
  location  <-24,19,12>
  look_at   <0,0,0>
}

light_source { <100,200,100> color rgb 1 }

plane { y, -2 pigment { color rgb 1 } }


#declare KeyValue = 1.366; // pick any you like

difference {
  prism {
    linear_sweep -0.5,0.5, 4
    
    <-3,20-17>,
    <-3,KeyValue>,
    <-6,-3>,
    <-0,-5>
  }
  intersection {
    cylinder { <-7,-0.51,1>, <-7, 0.51,1>, 4.0 }
    plane { z, KeyValue }
  }
  pigment { color rgb 0.5 } 
}

Apparently the surface of the other object becomes visible when it exactly coincides with a vertex of the prism; probably there is a failure of the inside() test for such values.

26Geometric PrimitivesDefinite Bug3.61Very LowLowArtifacts rendering a cloth which has two-side texturesTracked on GitHub
0%
Future release Task Description

Dear PovRay maintainers and developers, congratulations for your great RayTracer!

We think that we have found a bug while we were rendering a piece of cloth.

In this piece of cloth were defined two textures, one for one side and one for the another side:

  texture { mesh_tex0_0 }
  interior_texture { mesh_tex0_1 }
  • Please: Look at line 77414 of the attached file “test.pov” to see

these definitions in their original context.

We have found some artifacts in the final rendering, in concrete near some wrinkles,
please, look at the attached file “render_artifacts.tga”, I have painted a big green arrow
near the artifacts, maybe you’ll need to do a zoom to see them more accurately.

They are as though the texture of the other side was painted in the incorrect side.

Fortunately, we have a patch to fix this bug (thanks to Denis Steinemann, he made the
implementation for PovRay 3.5, so I have adapted these changes to release 3.6.1)

Although we have found this bug in the Windows and Linux 3.6.1 releases,
the patch was generated in Linux (using the source code release of “povray-3.6.1”).

To apply this patch, inside the parent folder of the directory “povray-3.6.1” execute:

            patch -p0 < other_side_artifacts.patch

And the “povray-3.6.1” will be patched and you will get a console output like this:

 patching file povray-3.6.1/source/lighting.cpp
 patching file povray-3.6.1/source/mesh.cpp
 patching file povray-3.6.1/source/render.cpp

We don’t know if this “hack” is enough smart to apply in the next release,
but we think that it fixes the bug (the artifacts dissapear).

Best regards and thank you very much for your great RayTracer!

289Light sourcePossible Bug3.70 RC7Very LowLowarea_illumination with light fading and scattering medi...Tracked on GitHub
0%
Task Description

with reference to http://bugs.povray.org/task/46

still some issue with area illumination and light fading when interacting with media

seems light fade is not taken into account with scattering media.
emission and absorption media seem to work fine.
occurs with all scattering types.

#version 3.7;

global_settings {
 ambient_light 0
 assumed_gamma 1
}

camera {
  location <0, 3, -5>
  look_at <0, 2, 0>
}


#declare Light = 3; // light 1 = individual lights
                   // light 2 = standard area light
                   // light 3 = area light with area illumination

#declare Fade = 1; // light fading: 1 on, 0 off

#declare Media = 1; // media 1 = scattering
                    // media 2 = emission
                    // media 3 = absorption

#declare Type = 1; // scattering media type


#switch(Light)
 #case(1)

  #declare Ls = light_source {
    0
    1/7
    #if(Fade) fade_distance 2 fade_power 2 #end
  }

  union {
   object { Ls }
   object { Ls translate .5*x }
   object { Ls translate x }
   object { Ls translate 1.5*x }
   object { Ls translate -.5*x }
   object { Ls translate -x }
   object { Ls translate -1.5*x }
   translate y
  }

 #break
 #case(2)

  light_source{
    y
    1
    area_light 3*x, z, 7, 1
    #if(Fade) fade_distance 2 fade_power 2 #end
  }

 #break
 #case(3)

  light_source{
    y
    1
    area_light 3*x, z, 7, 1
    #if(Fade) fade_distance 2 fade_power 2 #end
    area_illumination on
  }

 #break

#end


cylinder { <0, .01, 0>, <0, 5, 0>, 2 pigment { rgbt 1 } hollow no_shadow
 interior {
  media {
   #if(Media = 1) scattering {Type, 30 } #end
   #if(Media = 2) emission 2 #end
   #if(Media = 3) absorption 2 #end
    density { cylindrical turbulence 1.5 scale <1, .14, 1> }
  }
 }
 scale <.15, 1, .4> translate 4*z
}

plane { y,0 pigment { rgb .7 } }
plane { -z,-7 pigment { gradient y color_map { [.5 rgb 1][.5 rgb 0] } } }
union {
 sphere { 0,.05 }
 sphere { .5*x,.05 }
 sphere { x,.05 }
 sphere { 1.5*x,.05 }
 sphere { -.5*x,.05 }
 sphere { -x,.05 }
 sphere { -1.5*x,.05 }
 translate y
  hollow pigment { rgbt 1 } interior { media { emission 10 } }
}
287Light sourceDefinite Bug3.70 RC7Very LowLowarea_illumination shadow calculationTracked on GitHub
50%
Future release Task Description

not sure if this is something needing further work or an intended effect.

Shadows from and area light with area_illumination on seem to follow the same shadow calculation as a standard area light by giving more weight to lights near the center of the array. I would assume the shadows would be calculated similarly to individual lights in the same pattern as the array by evenly distributing the amount of shadow equally for each light. But this is not what I see.

The code sample below when rendered with scene 1 will show shadows grouped near the center from the area light with area_illumination. If scene 1 is commented out and scene 2 is uncommented then rendered, you will see evenly distributed shadows from individual lights. Area lighting with area_illumination I would assume should give a result identical to scene 2. If scene 1 is rendered with area_illumination off, the shadow calculation is exactly the same as with area_illumination on.

example images rendered on win32 XP

#version 3.7;

global_settings {
 ambient_light 0
 assumed_gamma 1
}

camera {
  location <0, 3, -5>
  look_at <0, 2, 0>
}

background { rgb <.3, .5, .8> }
plane { y,0 pigment { rgb .7 } }
torus { 1.5,.1 rotate 90*x translate 4*z pigment { rgb .2 } }
plane { -z,-7 pigment { rgb .7 } }

/*
// scene 1
light_source{
  y
  1
  area_light 3*x, z, 7, 1
  area_illumination on
}
union {
 sphere { 0,.05 }
 sphere { .5*x,.05 }
 sphere { x,.05 }
 sphere { 1.5*x,.05 }
 sphere { -.5*x,.05 }
 sphere { -x,.05 }
 sphere { -1.5*x,.05 }
 translate y
  hollow pigment { rgbt 1 } interior { media { emission 10 } }
}
// end scene 1
*/


// scene 2
#declare Light = light_source {
  0
  1/7
  looks_like { sphere { 0,.05 hollow pigment { rgbt 1 } interior { media { emission 10 } } } }
}

union {
 object { Light }
 object { Light translate .5*x }
 object { Light translate x }
 object { Light translate 1.5*x }
 object { Light translate -.5*x }
 object { Light translate -x }
 object { Light translate -1.5*x }
 translate y
}
// end scene 2

292Geometric PrimitivesUnimp. Feature/TODO3.70 RC7Very LowLowArbitrary containing object for isosurfacesTracked on GitHub
0%
Task Description

A low priority thought for the future: isosurface now only allows contained_by to be a sphere or a box. It would be more intuitive to allow the same objects that are allowed in clipped_by and bounded_by (although it probably needs to be finite). It would enable allow much faster rendering in many cases:

1) There are a lot of cases when the sphere or a box are very bad in bounding - if an object has a hole, a torus may be better, and in many cases, cylindrical bounding would help a lot.
2) Sometimes, having a too large contained_by object includes far-away parts of the iso-function, and expose large gradients that you want to avoid. If a bounding object is better, you can decrease the max_gradient and speed up the render.
3) The isosurface is usually much more expensive to calculate than any normal bounding object, so it’s an improvement even if the intesection test is not as fast as bounding box.
4) A typical case: if you use texture-like functions to make the surface realistically rough, you know almost exactly what the bounding object is - it can be the original unmodified object.
5) For isosurface terrains, a preprocessing macro could create a rough mesh-like bounding object to contain the “mountains”, thus making everything faster.
6) In case you want clipping, having the contained_by set to the same object probably avoits calculating too many intersections.

The main modification is probably that the intersections of bounding objects can be split into more than one interval - but it’s probably worth it, the isosurfaces are usually a speed bottleneck.

58Parser/SDLUnimp. Feature/TODO3.70 beta 32DeferLowallow SDL code to detect optional featuresTracked on GitHub
0%
Task Description

Some features are optional in custom builds of POV-Ray (I’m thinking about OpenEXR in particular); it would be nice to have a syntax for an SDL script to check for support of such features, so it may take some fallback action if the feature is not supported.

242OtherFeature RequestAllDeferVery LowAlgorithm to fix the so-called shadow line artifactTracked on GitHub
0%
Task Description

The so-called shadow line artifact (http://wiki.povray.org/content/Knowledgebase:The_Shadow_Line_Artifact) which affects objects with a ‘normal’ statement as well as smooth meshes and heightfields can be really annoying sometimes. Currently the only way to remove it is to make the object shadowless, which isn’t a good solution except in very special cases.

This algorithm could remove the artifact: If the actual normal vector of the object points away from the light source (its dot-product with the light vector is negative) but the perturbed normal points towards it (dot-product positive), then ignore the first shadow-test intersection with the object itself.

There are alternative ways of implementing an equivalent functionality:

- Don’t check the condition (if it’s too difficult to check due to how the code is designed) but always ignore the first intersection with the objects itself. This will work properly with closed surfaces but not with open ones, so it might need to be a feature for the user to turn on with a keyword (similar to eg. ‘double_illuminate’).

- Alternatively, don’t ignore the first intersection, but instead ignore the “opposite side” of the object’s surface (again, possibly only if a keyword has been specified). In other words, if we are rendering the outer side of the object, ignore its inner side when shadow-testing, and vice-versa.

- Perhaps simply add a feature to make surfaces one-sided (similarly to how they can be made so in OpenGL and similar scanline rendering systems). In other words, the inner side of a surface is completely ignored everywhere, making the object virtually invisible from the inside. The advantage of this feature would be that it can have uses other than simply removing the shadow line artifact.

27OtherFeature Request3.70 beta 32Very LowLowAdd texture support to background statementTracked on GitHub
0%
Future release Task Description

Adding full texture statement support to the background statement (with a scale of 1/1) aligned with the image_map direction of an image would allow i.e. specifying an image as background easily.

65Parser/SDLFeature Request3.70 beta 34Very LowLowAdd support for vectors with functionsTracked on GitHub
0%
Future release Task Description

Being able to have functions operate on vectors would be pretty nice to have.

86Parser/SDLFeature RequestNot applicableDeferVery LowAdd support for more RNG typesTracked on GitHub
0%
Future release Task Description

The current 32-bit linear congruential generator used as RNG in POV-Ray is sometimes quite limited for some purposes and in a few cases its poor quality shows up (as has been demonstrated more than once in the newsgroup). Thus it would be nice if POV-Ray offered additional, higher-quality random number generators, besides the current one (which should probably remain for backwards compatibility). These RNGs could include algorithms like the Mersenne Twister and the ISAAC RNG, both of which have very decent quality and have an enormous periods (while at the same time being very fast).

After a long discussion, the following syntax for specifying the RNG type and seed (which may be larger than 32 bits) has been suggested:

seed(<value>) | seed(<type>, <value> [, <values>])

For example:

#declare Seed1 = seed(123); // Use the current RNG, with seed 123
#declare Seed2 = seed(1, 123); // Identical to the previous one
#declare Seed3 = seed(2, 456, 789, 123); // Use RNG algorithm #2,
                                         // with a large seed (96 bits specified here)

A C++ implementation of the ISAAC RNG can be found at http://warp.povusers.org/IsaacRand.zip

177Light sourceFeature Request3.70 beta 39Very LowLowAdd support for conserve_energy to shadow computationsTracked on GitHub
0%
Task Description

The following scene gives a comparison of current conserve_energy handling in standard shadow computations vs. photons.

Note how the rather highly reflective slabs fail to cast shadows, except where the photons target sphere enforces computation of shadow brightness to be done by the photons algorithm.

For more realistic shadowing without the need to enable photons, I suggest do add proper conserve_energy handling to the shadow computation code (which shouldn’t be too much effort).

global_settings {
  max_trace_level 10
  photons { spacing 0.003 media 10 }
}

camera {
  right x*image_width/image_height
  location  <-2,2.6,-10>
  look_at   <0,0.75,0>
}

light_source {
  <500,300,150>
  color rgb 1.3
  photons {
    refraction on
    reflection on
  }
}

sky_sphere {
  pigment {
    gradient y
    color_map {
      [0.0 rgb <0.6,0.7,1.0>]
      [0.7 rgb <0.0,0.1,0.8>]
    }
  }
}

plane {
  y, 0
  texture { pigment { color rgb 0.7 } }
}

#declare M_Glass=
material {
  texture {
    pigment {rgbt 1}
    finish {
      ambient 0.0
      diffuse 0
      specular 0.2 // just to give a hint where the sphere is
    }
  }
  interior { ior 1.0 }
}

#declare M_PseudoGlass=
material {
  texture {
    pigment {rgbt 1}
    finish {
      ambient 0.0
      diffuse 0.5
      specular 0.6
      roughness 0.005
      reflection { 0.3, 1.0 fresnel on }
      conserve_energy
    }
  }
  interior { ior 1.5 }
}


sphere {
  <1.1,1,-1.3>, 1
  material { M_Glass }
  photons {
    target 1.0
    refraction on
    reflection on
  }
}

// behind target object
box {
  <-0.2,0,-2.3>, <0.0,4,0.3>
  material { M_PseudoGlass }
  rotate z*1 // just to better see the reflection of the horizon
}

// before target object
box {
  <2.4,0,-2.3>, <2.6,4,-0.3>
  material { M_PseudoGlass }
  photons { pass_through }
  rotate z*1 // just to better see the reflection of the horizon
}
87Geometric PrimitivesFeature RequestNot applicableDeferVery LowAdd new feature: Reference objectTracked on GitHub
0%
Future release Task Description

When you instantiate an object several times, eg:

object { MyObj translate -x*10 }
object { MyObj translate x*10 }

POV-Ray will copy that object in memory, at least for most types of objects. Not for all of them, though. Most famously if MyObj is a mesh, it won’t be copied, but only a reference to the original will be used, thus saving memory. (There are a few other primitives which also don’t cause a copy, such as bicubic_patch and blob, but those are naturally not so popular as mesh, so it’s a less known fact.)

AFAIK the reason why referencing (rather than copying) is not used for all types of objects is rather complicated, and mostly related to how transformations are applied to these objects. For example if the object being instantiated is a union, the translates above will be (AFAIK) applied to the individual members of the union rather than to the union object itself.

Copying, however, can be quite detrimental in some situations. For example if you have a huge union, and you want to instantiate it many times, the memory usage will be that many times larger (compared to just one instance). This is sometimes something which the user would not want, even if it made the rendering slightly slower as a consequence. (In other words, better to be able to render the scene in the first place, rather than running out of memory.)

Redesigning POV-Ray so that all objects would be referenced rather than copied would probably be a huge job, and in some cases a questionable one. There probably are situations where the current method really produces faster rendering times, so redesigning POV-Ray so that it would always reference instead of copy, could make some scenes render slower.

So this got me thinking about an alternative approach: How hard would it be to create a special object which sole purpose is to act as a reference to another object, without copying it? This special reference object would act as any regular object, would have its own transformation matrix and all that data related to objects, but its sole purpose is to simply be a “wrapper” which references an existing object. It could be, for example, like this:

object_ref { MyObj translate -x*10 }
object_ref { MyObj translate x*10 }

The end result would be exactly identical as earlier, but the difference is that now MyObj behaves in the same way as a mesh (in the sense that it’s not instantiated twice, but only once, even though it appears twice in the scene), regardless of what MyObj is.

In some cases this might render slightly slower than the first version (because POV-Ray has to apply the transformations of the object_ref first, after which it applies whatever transformations are inside MyObj), but that’s not the point here. The point is to save memory if MyObj is large.

An object_ref would behave like any other object, so you could do things like:

#declare MyObjRef = object_ref { MyObj };

object { MyObjRef translate -x*10 }
object { MyObjRef translate x*10 }

(The only thing being instantiated (and copied) here is the “MyObjRef” object, not the object it’s referring to, so that actual object is still stored in memory only once.)

In some situations it might even be so that referenced objects actually render faster than if the objects were copied because references increase data locality, lessening cache misses.

I believe this could be a rather useful feature and should be seriously considered, unless there are some major obstacles in implementing it.

319Texture/Material/FinishFeature Request3.70 releaseVery LowLowAdd interior to #default directiveTracked on GitHub
0%
Task Description

When working with predefined materials, it would be useful to have something like:

#if (!Use_photons)
  #default { interior { caustics 1 } }
#end

#include "my_predefined_materials.inc"

Default medias or IORs could also be useful.

131OtherFeature Request3.70 beta 37aVery LowLowAbility to change the order of editor tabs by dragging ...Tracked on GitHub
0%
Future release Task Description

See Notepad++ or EditPad Lite for examples.

It would be nice to be able to drag tabs in the editor window to change their order, so as to group opened files together by relevance for instance.

324Geometric PrimitivesDefinite Bug3.70 releaseVery LowHigh3.7 mesh2 rendering artifact, regression from 3.6Tracked on GitHub
0%
Task Description

Povray 3.7 has rendering artifact in meshes with polygons that meet at shallow angles. Please see the attached file.

The part of concern is the mesh2, which produces the partly-transparent faces of a shallow pyramid. The file result-3_6.png shows the output of povray-3.6, and the file result-3_7.png shows the output of povray-3.7. In 3.7, you can see a thin light-colored margin all around the base of the pyramid, especially thick under the top cylinder. In 3.6, this artifact is absent. For comparison purposes, I have inserted a “#version 3.6;” directive at the top of the file so that the output images are as close to each other as possible. However, the artifact is still present in 3.7 without this directive.

The attached scene file is only a small part of a much larger scene, where this artifact shows up in numerous very obvious places, where it doesn’t in 3.6. I have hunted in the documentation and online for ways to solve this problem, but haven’t found anything. Because of this, I am forced to stay with 3.6 for production use, which is quite unfortunate since I’d like to take advantage of the new features of 3.7.

28FrontendFeature Request3.70 beta 32Very LowLow#debug message not displayed.Tracked on GitHub
0%
Future release Task Description

The #debug message stream is only being flushed when it hits a newline character,
instead of after each #debug statement. This means that some final strings don’t show up.

#debug "This line prints,\n but this line doesn't."
Showing tasks 51 - 100 of 103 Page 2 of 3 - 1 - 2 - 3 -

Available keyboard shortcuts

Tasklist

Task Details

Task Editing