Le 04/12/2012 02:16, Christian Froeschlin nous fit lire :
> Kenneth wrote:
> 
>> OBSERVATIONS:
> 
> you may be overcomplicating the situation a bit. It appears that
> 
> 1. The first frame rendered determines whether to use bounding
>    for all frames (this is a bug or design flaw, IMHO)

I agree. Sound wrong. Make sense with the observations so far.

> 
> 2. If bounding is disabled, frames with many objects render slowly
>    (this is to be expected)
> 
> There is nothing magical about "adding" objects between frames.
> An animition is almost rendered as if each frame were a separate
> scene, with some automic values for variables like clock, special
> output file names, and apparently an unfortunate persistence of
> the predetermined bounding setting.

From previous experiment (by Kenneth), I would conclude so far that
sphere does not seem to leak.

And from Sereib:
> Dear all,
> 
> in my animation, the number of objects kept absolutely constant from the first
> to the final frame: Approx. 1 million rocks orbiting a planet. The thing which
> changed (beside the position of the rocks) is the nature of the rocks: A certain
> fraction (those far away from the camera location) are just spheres, while the
> rocks closer to the camera are isosurfaces. Since the camera comes closer and
> closer to the planet, the fraction of rocks consisting of isosurfaces increases
> by the same number the fraction of spheres decreases.

Now, there is another candidate for leak: isosurface.
Maybe a bit more details about the used isosurface (was precompute used
? other setting(s) ?)

Post a reply to this message