"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in message
news:3dd3e683@news.povray.org...

<snip>

Well, at the risk of being killfiled, this is getting silly.

Andrew asked if it was possible to start an anim render on two machines,
starting at opposite ends. You proposed that a solution would be:

>"How about taking the much simpler approach of just starting the second one
>in the middle?  Kind of more logical..." (that's your first reply to Andrew's
post)

Then Warp points out that this doesn't achieve what Andrew wants - and then,
despite the fact that both Warp and Andrew have been very specific, you come up
with two non-working interpretations of what they have said ("non-working" in
the sense that they don't achieve an optimisation of render time).

On top of this, you also state that starting a render from opposite ends does
not achieve an optimal render time:

>"Otherwise such a simple attempt of load distribution
>will simply not give you any advantage at all."

Which is plainly false. So tell me, how am I to interpret this as anything else
but that you've misunderstood what is being proposed?

Aditionally, you state that:

>"But that is not what Andrew has been looking for.  If one would know in
>advance how many frame each instance will render the need to start at both
>ends does simply not exist."

Well, imho, Andrew knew exactly what he was looking for (from his original
post):

>"Forgive me if this has been asked before, but is it possible, when rendering
on 2 machines, to
>have the second machine start at the last frame, and work towards frame 1, so
both machines
>meet each other at some point?"

Where does he state that he needs to know how many frames each instance will
render?

Now, I'm sorry if I've offended by my daring to try and clarify, but you
seem/seemed confused about what was being proposed - I am well aware of your
contribution to pov, but I am also aware that developers don't tend to do much
complex scene creation (which is not a criticism - those that can, program,
those that can't write scenes;), so what might seem an obstacle to you (lack of
co-ordination between the two instances), might not seem an obstace to someone
rendering a complex scene.

Andrews suggestion, for example, would be a boon for me - if you apply Warp's
varient that you could apply it to a still image, and have two renders render
the scene - one from top left to bottom right, the other from bottom right to
top left.

I could render the image in two unequal halves on my home and work machine. It
might seem a problem that there is no co-ordination between the two processes,
but if the render takes, say 7 days, this is not really an issue, since I will
have a chance to check the progress of each render and choose an appropriate
time to stop them.

Now, apart from my terrible crime of trying to clear up what seemed to be a
misinterpretation on your part, my only other sin was that I became confused
between what you were proposing as a solution and what you were criticising as a
solution (a criticism based on your misinterpretation of what was being said).
Given that your proposal:

>"How about taking the much simpler approach of just starting the second one
>in the middle?  Kind of more logical..." (that's your first reply to Andrew's
post)

and your criticism invoke broadly similiar methods (with broadly similiar
problems), I don't see that my confusion is so shocking.

Now as I said, I'm sorry if I offended, but to be frank if you are going to take
offense when you quite clearly misunderstood something, then I'm probably better
off being kill-filed....

Post a reply to this message