 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I just wonder how keyword "open" in cylinder statement influences speed of
rendering - I have a lot of cylinders with not visible bases - is it worth to
add some extra characters to type "open" and increase file size and speed of
parsing and typing :-) to achive a little faster rendering ?
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Actually could potentially increase render times.
If reflection is used for example the inner parts of the cylinder would get
checked instead of remaining outside. Same for radiosity. Any gaps to the
insides of the cylinders would be seen by POV even though unseen by the
camera directly.
Bob H.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 12 Mar 2001 16:56:06 +0100, "Wlodzimierz ABX Skiba"
<abx### [at] abx artpl> wrote:
>I just wonder how keyword "open" in cylinder statement influences speed of
>rendering - I have a lot of cylinders with not visible bases - is it worth to
>add some extra characters to type "open" and increase file size and speed of
>parsing and typing :-) to achive a little faster rendering ?
Do some testing :) It should be a little bit faster because the caps
are ray-shape-intersection-tested separately (if the cylinder is not
open).
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Do some testing :) It should be a little bit faster because the caps
> are ray-shape-intersection-tested separately (if the cylinder is not
> open).
But surely in the end of the cylinder is limited by a plane, which has to be
checked in either case (as the cylinder isn't infinitely long)? And if you
can't see the ends then it shouldn't do any more processing beyond that.
Still, it can't hurt to try :)
--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tekno Frannansa wrote:
>
> > Do some testing :) It should be a little bit faster because the caps
> > are ray-shape-intersection-tested separately (if the cylinder is not
> > open).
>
> But surely in the end of the cylinder is limited by a plane, which has
> to be checked in either case (as the cylinder isn't infinitely long)?
> And if you can't see the ends then it shouldn't do any more processing
> beyond that.
>
> Still, it can't hurt to try :)
The plane clipping test is different from a ray-plane intersection test.
Due to the automatic bounding of objects, there will probably be little
gain; if the bound check shows a miss, the whole cylinder is skipped,
and therefore the ends aren't checked anyway.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
