It's normals, dude. And it's normal for a fluid sim, as well :/ Some of the individual droplets are smaller than ray_nudge_distance across, it acts just like a reversed normal. Would that explain the error message about "Vec3" in Indigo 1.1.7? I think it might be that the Blender particles are not ...

It's normals, dude. And it's normal for a fluid sim, as well :/ Some of the individual droplets are smaller than ray_nudge_distance across, it acts just like a reversed normal. Would that explain the error message about "Vec3" in Indigo 1.1.7? I think it might be that the Blender particles are not ...

Thanks for the observations and suggestions. As I expected, the blotches were associated with "particles." Running the fluid simulation again with particles = 0 produced a clean image. I had included particles because I thought drops of liquid would look nice. I tried post bake sub division and it c...

See the thread called "Syntax error parsing Vec3" under Bugs and Requests. I cross posted (sorry). Some info there and an example of rendered image.

It basically means that somewhere in your scene file a 1 0 0 for example triplet did not parse correctly. It is most likely due to a bug in the exporter Yeah. More info: It renders in Indigo 1.0.4 but with black blotches. Seems to be bad triangles generated by the particles in Blender fluid simulat...

Regius wrote: anybody knows what's this all about? Fatal Error: IndigoDriverExcep: SceneLoaderExcep: syntax error while parsing Vec3 Stopped. What's Vec3 ? I hope someone knows. I'm getting it too. It seems to choke on the mesh. My model is a fluid simulation. :cry: Indigo 1.1.7 Blendigo for 1.1.7 ...

Regius wrote:anybody knows what's this all about?

Fatal Error: IndigoDriverExcep: SceneLoaderExcep: syntax error while parsing Vec3
Stopped.

What's Vec3 ?

I hope someone knows. I'm getting it too. It seems to choke on the mesh. My model is a fluid simulation.

I upgraded my Core 2 Duo E6300 1.86 GHz to a Quad 6600 2.4 GHz. Easy upgrade, just drop in the new CPU. Unfortunately I have an Intel mb (DG965WH) and from what I've read you can't over clock. I had hoped to get rendering at three times as fast but it is closer to 2.3 times faster. Anyway, well wort...

The Z up assumes you are on a planet. ?????????????? Yeah, the starting point is the Cartesian plane, with x across and y up. If you maintain the orientation of looking at that plane then the only place to add the third dimension is to have it coming off the plane, which would be toward/away from t...

after googling a bit, it seems that in mathematical point of view Z is up :? It simply seems that a 2d x-y graph is generally always lying on the ground, and you see it from above... The Y-up guys & gals moved view and graph to 90°... like they where the center of the world :roll: That was how I fi...

Kram1032 wrote:I'd say mouses

Dogs!

Since I use Blender it is set to Zup, but I prefer Yup. I started with POV-Ray 15 years ago and to me that will always be the correct orientation. Z should be coming toward you, not up. When you graph something on paper Y is up, X is left-right, so Z should be coming off the paper toward you, not up...

I have feisty fawn installed (7.04) although I dual boot and use Vista most of the time. I'm wondering what are the differences? Is it worth risking a dead computer to upgrade? Took me a while to get internet connection and Beryl configured last time.

Great image!

A small (baby size) suggestion. The baby's torso should be a little smaller. I'd say the baby is more toddler size than a carpet crawler. Reducing the torso would make the head larger, as it is now it looks a little smaller than what a baby's head is relative to it's body.

Yes, like you said. You need to render two images obviously. The average distance between eyes is 6cm and both camera should have the same center of interest. For the color you can scan the glasses ahead of a white page to get the hue... I would advise against having the camera use the same center ...