PovRay for Windows + Win95
Rob Malda
For those of you who (like myself) were forced by Microsofts all poweful
beta test program to play with windows 95, I want to know if anyone
else noticed a problem with Pov32Win? Namely, saving graphics. They
render fine (and pretty fast) but when I attempt to save them (as a .bmp,
.jpg or .gif) it croaks on me.
Is there a bug fix? Am I alone in experiencing this bug? Speak to me!
Rob `This statement protected by safety quotes' Malda
John Anderson
[snip]
>...windows 95, I want to know if anyone
>else noticed a problem with Pov32Win? Namely, saving graphics. They
>render fine (and pretty fast) but when I attempt to save them (as a .bmp,
>.jpg or .gif) it croaks on me.
I assume you're referring to W32POV08.EXE (Win32s POV-Ray v.08).
First, this is an unofficial compile that does not meet with the POV-Ray
team's legal requisites, so it is no longer supported by Dave Crawford (the
author). Don't expect to see any new releases or bug fixes. In fact, delete
it right away (just kidding).
As for the problem, w32pov08 doesn't handle win95's new file system, so
saving renderings is not possible. The program does, however, output a
.tga file with the same name of the input .pov scene source. This .tga file
is 24bit color, so will probably need some color reduction with average
SVGA displays. Plenty of free/shareware image editors capable of this
exist for windows.
One trick you might not be aware of. You can use a file named
POVRAY.DEF in the same directory as w32pov08, and the .def file will be
used to set the basic parameters for the program. My .def file looks like
this:
+Lc:\povray2\include
+Lc:\povray2\maps
+Lc:\povray2\scenes
+oc:\povray2\output\%1.tga
-a +b0 +ft
-w400 -h300
w32pov08 will parse this file upon startup, and the options available from
the menus will be set based upon this information. For instance, if you
wanted anti-aliasing on as default, you could change the "-a" to "+a".
Hope this helps. PEace...
John Anderson <jand...@comnet.usc.vcu.edu>
John Norcross {83602}
>Ok Kids, a silent lurker has a quick question-
>For those of you who (like myself) were forced by Microsofts all poweful
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>beta test program to play with windows 95, I want to know if anyone
>else noticed a problem with Pov32Win? Namely, saving graphics. They
>render fine (and pretty fast) but when I attempt to save them (as a .bmp,
>.jpg or .gif) it croaks on me.
>Is there a bug fix? Am I alone in experiencing this bug? Speak to me!
>Rob `This statement protected by safety quotes' Malda
Rob,
I suspect you were not *forced* to either buy their beta (Yes, folks,
they make you *pay* them to test their beta software!) or forced to
play with Windows 95. Other choices (much, much better ones IMHO)
abound for OS's that have a POV compile available to them. For an
INTEL box, OS/2 and LINUX are a much better choice than that *toy*
operating system Microsoft is 'forcing' you to use.
Try not to be a lemming!
John
John Anderson
>I suspect you were not *forced* to either buy their beta (Yes, folks,
>they make you *pay* them to test their beta software!) or forced to
>play with Windows 95. Other choices (much, much better ones IMHO)
>abound for OS's that have a POV compile available to them. For an
>INTEL box, OS/2 and LINUX are a much better choice than that *toy*
>operating system Microsoft is 'forcing' you to use.
Before this becomes a Microsoft/Win95 bash session, I'd like to point out
that unless you've tried the OS in question, it's a good idea to keep your
mouth shut about it's appropriateness for certain applications.
That said, and having the experience of running late beta Win95 as I type,
it does pretty much suck thus far. If they can get the thing to jump
through it's hoops, however, it will be a desktop OS to contend with.
John Anderson <jand...@comnet.usc.vcu.edu>
Michel Joron
>
>
> That said, and having the experience of running late beta Win95 as I type,
> it does pretty much suck thus far. If they can get the thing to jump
> through it's hoops, however, it will be a desktop OS to contend with.
>
> John Anderson <jand...@comnet.usc.vcu.edu>
>
I'm running Win95 with VORT compiled with GCC, and it runs very well
under Win95.. Right now, I'm listening to a CDROM, while reading my e-mail,
and of course doing a new rendering, usually I even running netscape
in the background to surf the Net; I have absolutely no complaints
about Win95. If they could only release it sooner... The only problems
I saw, it is with MSN (Microsoft Network) and Exchange, they are very
too slow for my taste on my 486/33.
H.Gibson
>John Norcross {83602} (j...@swl.msd.ray.com) was once caught typing...
>>I suspect you were not *forced* to either buy their beta (Yes, folks,
>>they make you *pay* them to test their beta software!) or forced to
>>play with Windows 95. Other choices (much, much better ones IMHO)
>>abound for OS's that have a POV compile available to them. For an
>>INTEL box, OS/2 and LINUX are a much better choice than that *toy*
>>operating system Microsoft is 'forcing' you to use.
>Before this becomes a Microsoft/Win95 bash session, I'd like to point out
>that unless you've tried the OS in question, it's a good idea to keep your
>mouth shut about it's appropriateness for certain applications.
>That said, and having the experience of running late beta Win95 as I type,
>it does pretty much suck thus far. If they can get the thing to jump
>through it's hoops, however, it will be a desktop OS to contend with.
>John Anderson <jand...@comnet.usc.vcu.edu>
I've tried OS/2 WARP and it REALLY SUCKS!!!!
IBM should be arrested for marketing that shit they call a better dos
than dos!
First of all it is EXTREMELY slow! It will run Win software alright
but what they don't tell you is that it has to LAUNCH Windows each and
every time you run an application!
Then to top it off, it trashed my second hard drive! (I have two
installed)
It took me 5 1/2 hours (yes I timed it!) before it would acknowledge I
even had a second drive. Then when it did finally find it it said it
was an "unformatted" drive.
My advice to Windows users is you don't realize how good you have it
until you install OS/2 WARP!
T. Philip Perlman
using WIN95 and the windows rendering program except for an
exception error that paps up if I leave it sitting too long...
no clue and I am really not phased by it. Otherwise the
renderings have been fine. I do not try to save the images in
other formats with the rendering programs, instead using either
Corel Photopaint or LView to convert them because I do more
altering to them that the rendering program can't handle. Well,
that is the way I do things around here... so good luck with
getting it to work... Lata! >:)
--Phil
John Norcross {83602}
>jan...@cabell.vcu.edu (John Anderson) wrote:
>>John Anderson <jand...@comnet.usc.vcu.edu>
Hey Gibson, take your comments to comp.os.os2.advocacy where they belong
- my comment was originally intended to point out the fact that Win95
might not be the best choice of Multitasking OS around to do background
raytraces on. You obviously have a language/emotionality problem that
can be remedied through the good 'ol fashioned oral intake of a soap
product.
I use OS/2 Warp. It does not suck. It is not slow. It does not trash
my hard drives. It runs my Windows software nicely. *And* it allows me
to run multiple raytraces in the background quite nicely while doing
other meaningful foreground tasks. OS/2 may suck for *you* if you don't
know how to install it and/or have inferior hardware.
Happy raytracing!
-John
Billy Riske
> IBM should be arrested for marketing that shit they call a better dos
> than dos!
> First of all it is EXTREMELY slow! It will run Win software alright
> but what they don't tell you is that it has to LAUNCH Windows each and
> every time you run an application!
> Then to top it off, it trashed my second hard drive! (I have two
> installed)
> It took me 5 1/2 hours (yes I timed it!) before it would acknowledge I
> even had a second drive. Then when it did finally find it it said it
> was an "unformatted" drive.
> My advice to Windows users is you don't realize how good you have it
> until you install OS/2 WARP!
>
s to continue this discussion, I'd gladly move over to
comp.os.os2.advocacy, but I just want to get my 2 cents in here. I also
run Os/2 warp and find it's a little slow. Just a little bit slower then
NT 3.5, but there's one catch here, I run warp on a 386sx/25 with 4megs
ram, and NT on a 486dx2/66 with 16megs ram. Now that's a slight
difference there. Ok, I agree with you on the windows thing as well, so
it takes a while to open a windows window. Ok, try this, turn your
computer off and start that little timer thing you got going there. Then
start a windows application by loading dos and all, and going into
windows. Then time how long it takes warp. Now that's a fair match
because that's what warp is doing. Loading dos/windows, then the program.
Now, the reason as I see it to why warp screwed your HD is probably
because you were looking for something that warp would screw up (I'm not
saying you went in and said fdisk d: or something). Just that you were
looking for a reason why win/dos would be better then warp. Why else
would you have timed yourself on getting it back up.
That's all I have to say and I'm ending this threed right here. Thanks.
______________________________________________________________________________
Billy Riske E-Mail : ri...@Freenet.mb.ca
MajorDomo Administrator or : majordo...@freenet.mb.ca
Technical Operations Committee
Blue Sky Freenet of Manitoba Inc.
______________________________________________________________________________