I suspect that you're doing something silly that's taking all that time.

This was done with a simplistic collision detection, just like that which
you describe, with no clever bounding or other tricks.
I didn't count placement failures, I just chose a sensible number of trees
to be placed by doing a previous run with a #debug that logs the number of
successful placements.

The parse time was 27 seconds on a 850MHz machine.
--

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'fillbox2.jpg' (51 KB)

Preview of image 'fillbox2.jpg'

"Mike Williams" <nos### [at] econymdemoncouk> wrote in message
news:406a0863@news.povray.org...
> I suspect that you're doing something silly that's taking all that
time.
>
> This was done with a simplistic collision detection, just like that
which
> you describe, with no clever bounding or other tricks.
> I didn't count placement failures, I just chose a sensible number of
trees
> to be placed by doing a previous run with a #debug that logs the
number of
> successful placements.
>
> The parse time was 27 seconds on a 850MHz machine.

  Mike, for me, I really do marvel at your input in various aspects of
PoV.

    Regards,

   ~Steve~




> --
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Mike Williams wrote:

> I suspect that you're doing something silly that's taking all that time.

Perhaps.

> This was done with a simplistic collision detection, just like that which
> you describe, with no clever bounding or other tricks.
> I didn't count placement failures, I just chose a sensible number of trees
> to be placed by doing a previous run with a #debug that logs the number of
> successful placements.

I'm rather curious how you're doing your collision detection. Even when 
choosing "a sensible number of trees", I would expect a much longer 
parse time based on my testing so far, due to the number of collision 
tests I have to make.

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message