> I suppose you could try using the evaluate keyword instead of just giving
> max_gradient...  go with evaluate 1e+17,3,0.1 or so, and maybe it'd run at
> a decent speed (if you're lucky) without mucking about with renormalizing
> the function.

The evaluate keyword is only for figuring out what max_gradient should 
be optimally set to. It doesn't change the need to make the function 
*reasonably* well behaved to get good performance...

Post a reply to this message