Wasn't it Gail Shaw who wrote:
>
>"Mike Williams" <nos### [at] econymdemoncouk> wrote in message
>news:429dca44@news.povray.org...
>> This is what I managed to come up with.
>> Parse time: 0s, render time: 121s on an old 850MHz machine.
>>
>
>Interesting. Are the star textures or objects?
>
>The reason mine is slow is that I'm distributing the stars (at the moment a
>total of 20000) according to
>a density. I think most of the parsing time comes from a location not
>matching the required density and having to be
>recalculated.

In the previous version, all the stars were textures. In this new verion,
the large stars are objects and the small stars are texture (Starfield1 from
the supplied "stars.inc" file with slight modifications).

Thiis version: Parse time: 1s, render time 132s.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'StarTest2.jpg' (153 KB)

Preview of image 'StarTest2.jpg'