On 7/4/2013 11:48 AM, Warp wrote:
> Todd Carnes <tod### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> The general user is not going to care how much you've improved the trace
>> time, if your overall time to finish the scene increases. As far as
>> they're concerned, the program is slower.
> 
> There's some kind of misunderstanding here.
> 
> With POV-Ray 3.6 it took 8 seconds to get the final image.
> 
> With POV-Ray 3.7 it took 5 seconds to get the final image.
> 
> Where exactly is this "the user has to wait longer" you are seeing?
> Because I'm not seeing it. The user had to way 3 seconds longer with
> POV-Ray 3.6 in order to get the image than with POV-Ray 3.7.
> 

No, just as the OP posted more than once...

POV-Ray 3.6 took 8.17 seconds to get to the final image.
POV-Ray 3.7 took 9.749 seconds to get to the final image.

I don't understand why you can't read these numbers for yourself. I will
copy them from the OP's post repost them again below.

For the record, I'm finding this whole "discussion" about a render that
only has a second or two difference to be pretty pointless. Whether you
choose open your eyes and actually read what was posted or not, I am
going to drop this pointless conversation.

Anyway, AGAIN, the OP's original numbers...

Fractracer <lg.### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Here the times for the same little scene:
> V3.7
> Render Time:
>   Photon Time:      No photons
>   Radiosity Time:   No radiosity
>   Trace Time:       0 hours  0 minutes  5 seconds (5.211 seconds)
>               using 2 thread(s) with 9.749 CPU-seconds total
> V3.6
> Total Scene Processing Times
>   Parse Time:    0 hours  0 minutes  0 seconds (0 seconds)
>   Photon Time:   0 hours  0 minutes  0 seconds (0 seconds)
>   Render Time:   0 hours  0 minutes  8 seconds (8 seconds)
>   Total Time:    0 hours  0 minutes  8 seconds (8 seconds)
> CPU time used: kernel 1.15 seconds, user 7.02 seconds, total 8.17 seconds
> Render averaged 37580.50 PPS over 307200 pixels

Post a reply to this message