Well, I have tried disabling all of the normals, as well as turning off  
radiosity and anti-aliasing...but to no avail, unfortunately. :(

I guess it is just perhaps all of the transmits and then the shadows cast  
by the non transmitting texture portions. I can't think of anything else.  
Though it still seems that this texture should not take so god-awfully  
long to render. If I can ever get povray to compile with vs2010 ultimate I  
will be sure to step through the code and run all kinds of metrics and  
performance evaluations as well. Though that is, honestly, a low priority.  
I need to finish the other things that I have started first.

I think that my situation and options are as outlined below:
1) I cannot fix the texture render time directly without ruining the  
texture or patching pov
2) I can either
	2a)	tessellate the surface and render the mesh
	2b)	implement a mesh based version of metaballs (I have some c# code  
which creates mesh metaballs [though..again without patching pov to get  
some useful collection types..])

That seems to be it. It is unknown which option would result in lower  
total render time, though I would expect parse time to be lower for option  
2b.

You know..it might actually be worth coming up with a patch to pov which  
would give the user something close to standard collection types such as  
follows:
1)	List<T>
2)	Dictionary<T,T>
3)	ArrayList<T>
4)	Tree<T>
5)	Ability to eval and run the same language pov-ray was written in, so  
you could mix c++ and SDL (such as overriding or overloading methods used  
in the renderer)
6)	MathML eval

But those are tasks for a different day...(perhaps even epoch)

Ian

On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 22:15:26 -0500, Slime <pov### [at] slimelandcom> wrote:

>  > Well it certainly is a complex texture, but I'd
>  > tend to blame it on the blurred reflection
>  >
>  >> normal {
>  >> wrinkles 0.1
>  >> scale 0.00001
>  >> }
>
> What are your anti-aliasing settings? With a texture like this, you'll  
> get a lot of oversampling, especially if you're using AA method 2. I  
> would increase the scale of that normal as much as possible. (Also, at a  
> scale that small, you probably don't need as much detail as the wrinkles  
> pattern provides.)
>
>   - Slime


-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Post a reply to this message