Mandelbulber v2 - 2.08

[Buddhi]

Also, is it possible to allow negative placement distance of lights? I often want to do this but am limited by the software.

As I understand you want to place the light behind the fractal? Is it correct?
I have never thought about it, but it would be easy to implement and also beneficial. It will allow backlighting in easy way. I'm adding it to our TODO list: https://github.com/buddhi1980/mandelbulber2/issues/117

[Buddhi]

I am getting lots of errors "too many errors in settings file" when trying to open the attached fract file (from 2.07). This is on mac version of 2.08.

I have found where was the error. There was lack of conversion of material parameters when old settings were loaded. I have just finished writing and testing fix for this. I hope to release Mandelbulber 2.08-2 by the end of next week. It will include all fixes for bugs reported last days.
You can observe our work progress here: https://github.com/buddhi1980/mandelbulber2/commits/2.08-2-bugfixes

[mclarekin]

.

After further testing it seems that the box folding of IFS needs even more than 3 digits. 5 decimal places seems like the right number.

Increased scale, offset and box fold to 6 decimal places.

[Starmute]

As I understand you want to place the light behind the fractal? Is it correct?
I have never thought about it, but it would be easy to implement and also beneficial. It will allow backlighting in easy way. I'm adding it to our TODO list: https://github.com/buddhi1980/mandelbulber2/issues/117

Yes, that's exactly what I want. Thanks!
Also, would it be possible to split volumetric lighting into 2 parameters - 'range' (how fast it decays) and 'brightness'? This would make it much easier and much less frustrating to use.

.
Increased scale, offset and box fold to 6 decimal places.

Great! That is good news.

[mclarekin]

I just wonder what other parameters need adjusting.  It would be helpful that whenever we are in a deep zoom situation, to test the last decimal on the various spinBoxes and note if any are still making noticeable change.  Scale and spherical minR I know for sure can be very sensitive deep down. And that reminds me to also check rotations.

Thanks again Starmute for the feedback, it sure gets issues found and sorted out quicker. 

[Starmute]

I just wonder what other parameters need adjusting.  It would be helpful that whenever we are in a deep zoom situation, to test the last decimal on the various spinBoxes and note if any are still making noticeable change.  Scale and spherical minR I know for sure can be very sensitive deep down. And that reminds me to also check rotations.

Thanks again Starmute for the feedback, it sure gets issues found and sorted out quicker. 

I will make sure to test the last decimals in my flight #21.

[taurus]

I just wonder what other parameters need adjusting.  It would be helpful that whenever we are in a deep zoom situation, to test the last decimal on the various spinBoxes and note if any are still making noticeable change.  Scale and spherical minR I know for sure can be very sensitive deep down. And that reminds me to also check rotations.

Thanks again Starmute for the feedback, it sure gets issues found and sorted out quicker. 

Good thing. I would have suggested that myself. I think most parameters should not be less sensitive than 6 digits. Some of them - the texture placement for example - need the full double float accuracy to make sense in deep zoom situations.

I lately experimented with mandelbox parameters close to -1. And the limit of 500 iterations was an unmanagable barrier there, so I returned to v1 to avoid. In my special case, I needed 900 Iters (found by trial and error) so I would suggest to increase that limit to at least 1000. thanks.

[Buddhi]

I lately experimented with mandelbox parameters close to -1. And the limit of 500 iterations was an unmanagable barrier there, so I returned to v1 to avoid. In my special case, I needed 900 Iters (found by trial and error) so I would suggest to increase that limit to at least 1000. thanks.

In v2.08-2 you will have limit 99999 for maximum number of iteration. I have jus changed it. I have no idea why it was only 500. Probably it was something which was taken from old Mandelbulber. Thanks for this suggestion.

[Starmute]

Buddhi, did you see what I asked about volumetric lighting? Is it possible?

[Buddhi]

Buddhi, did you see what I asked about volumetric lighting? Is it possible?

Yes, it's possible. I will do this change in 2.09.

[taurus]

I have no idea why it was only 500. Probably it was something which was taken from old Mandelbulber.

At least not from 1.12 and 1.21 which I still have installed.

[Starmute]

Also, is it possible to add 'remaining time' for both single image and entire render, like was done in 1.xx?

[Buddhi]

Also, is it possible to add 'remaining time' for both single image and entire render, like was done in 1.xx?

I'm not sure what you mean. There is already double progress bar (see attached image). Top one is for total progress of rendering of animation. Bottom one is for single image.

[Starmute]

I'm not sure what you mean. There is already double progress bar (see attached image). Top one is for total progress of rendering of animation. Bottom one is for single image.

It is not there on mac. I see the progress bars but no indication of time remaining.

[mclarekin]

Is it just me or is rendering in 2.08 far faster than in 2.07?

@ starmute.  You are correct, some parts are far faster than 2.07  

Since you mentioned it, I have noticed some increase. Example  a 3200 x 2400 that previously took 6 minutes now takes around 3 minutes.  This should greatly improve doing animation.