On 2010-12-13 19:31, clipka wrote:
> Am 14.12.2010 00:08, schrieb CShake:
>
>> 2) vray has GPU acceleration. I know the official stance here is that
>> povray needs to work with double instead of float, but nowadays CUDA
>> allows for that (at reduced speed) and really, there probably are places
>> in the scene where floats would work fine.
>
> That /used/ to be the official stance, when double precision floating
> point arithmetics wasn't available in GPUs.
>
> While this is a non-issue nowadays, there are other remaining issues
> that make GPU use problematic (most notably the inavailability of
> recursions) as well as of low benefit (most notably the fact that GPUs
> are most efficient on bulk data that undergoes the same
> transformations). Avoiding those issues is possible, but in the case of
> POV-Ray would require a complete redesign of its internal architecture.

Ah, didn't know for sure. Is that because of the function based 
primitives that POV uses compared to entirely triangle meshes in most 
other packages?

>
>> 4) vray advertises motion blur, bokeh on DoF, ... All things that _can_
>> be done with povray but require someone to write macros.
>
> In the case of bokeh, macros are no longer needed (with version 3.7 that
> is) ;-)

Neat, hadn't seen that. And now that I check the changelog, thanks to 
you for implementing it. :)

As for my comment above about the render being more realistic or 
accurate, I should qualify that by saying that POV seems to be the most 
physically accurate tracer that works on rgb internally instead of 
wavelength response.

Post a reply to this message