Thorsten Froehlich wrote:

> In article <3dd3921d@news.povray.org> , Jaime Vives Piqueres
> <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg>  wrote:
> 
>>> So you suggest one renders the even and another the odd indexed frames?
>>> Or do you suggest that the beginning and the end of a sequence take long
>>> and you divide them such that one renders from beginning to the middle
>>> of the
>>> sequence and the other from the end to the middle of the sequence?  Why
>>> would it have to work backwards in either case?  The speed would be the
>>> same regardless of sequence direction!
>>
>>   IMHO, in the case you proposed, one of the computers can finish before
>> the other, because the first half renders fast or viceversa, so one of
>> the computers becomes iddle while the other is still rendering, and there
>> are still pending frames. With the other solution (starting at both
>> ends), no computer is iddle: both finish at the same time, so they finish
>> the task before undoubtely (except in perfectly balanced animations where
>> all the frames take the same amount of time to render).
> 
> Hmm, why did you as well as Tom manage to completely miss that I queried
> _two_ possible solutions?  I mean, the very first sentence is crystal
> clear. And note that I did not proposed them as solution but _asked_ which
> one Warp
> is talking about.  There are questionmarks at the end...

  Sorry, my fault for quoting the wrong message. I was talking about this 
proposal (which reading what I wrote seems clear):

>>How about taking the much simpler approach of just starting the second one
>>in the middle?  Kind of more logical...


-- 
Jaime Vives Piqueres

La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org

Post a reply to this message