|
 |
George Pantazopoulos wrote:
>
> Hey Cristoph,
> Yes, I've taken your previous comments to heart. While the Master is a
> GUI Windows program, the slaves could be ported to any platform, since they
> are command-line programs and communicate with the Master via a TCP
> protocol. That way, you would only need one Windows machine for the entire
> render farm, and it wouldn't need to be a particularly powerful or expensive
> machine.
If you make the communication program platform independent i don't
understand why you need a platform specific master. The GUI should be
purely optional anyway. And if you want the system to be universally
usable you should probably test it on different machines during
development - especially network communication is a critical part in that
concern.
If you don't have access to a unix machine to test simply try compiling it
with cygwin. - if it works there is a good chance it will do so on other
systems as well (assuming you are taking care of things like byte order
etc.).
> Also I am coding in 48-bit support from the start :) And yes,
> automating a 2-pass render is definitely a goal of mine. I know that if you
> use always_sample off that you need higher quality settings and other
> techniques to make up for the loss, but how do scenes *rely* on data
> gathered during the final trace?
Changing the settings does not compensate the lack of possibility to take
samples during final trace. If you use a minimum pretrace_end this will
help a lot but there are still samples taken during the final trace in
many cases.
After all radiosity simply isn't possible to be distributed on many
computers perfectly, but the best solution will be to share the data
gathered on the individual nodes like it is done in PVMegapov. This will
of course create extra network traffic and will not work without modifying
POV-Ray.
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 13 Aug. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
