 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Description from the scene file:
> About: My persistence of the vision of a small ultra-light helicoper,
> featuring a small engine and made of fiber glass (the case) and plexi
> glass (for the canopy). Note the two conter-rotating rotors beside
> each other. This helicopter could carry, as concepted with this
> file, one adult normally and probably another one in some cases, or
> some light freight beside the pilot.
Full credits go to Sven Littkowski, all I did was the 50-hour render :)
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'sl heli chopper 02.png' (125 KB)
Preview of image 'sl heli chopper 02.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
A lot of credits go, as well, to Nicolas Alvarez who gave 50 hours to render
the scene.
Thanks, Nicolas!
Sven
"Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmail isthebestcom> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag news:47a111e5@news.povray.org...
> Description from the scene file:
>
>> About: My persistence of the vision of a small ultra-light helicoper,
>> featuring a small engine and made of fiber glass (the case) and plexi
>> glass (for the canopy). Note the two conter-rotating rotors beside
>> each other. This helicopter could carry, as concepted with this
>> file, one adult normally and probably another one in some cases, or
>> some light freight beside the pilot.
>
> Full credits go to Sven Littkowski, all I did was the 50-hour render :)
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sven Littkowski escribió:
> A lot of credits go, as well, to Nicolas Alvarez who gave 50 hours to render
> the scene.
While my other core was working on... something. Maybe biology, maybe
chemistry, maybe testing primes. Right now, one CPU is researching
nano-magnetic molecules and the other is doing geometry.
I'm pretty sure a lot of people on this newsgroup knows what horror it
is to see an idle CPU. I keep mine busy.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
> I'm pretty sure a lot of people on this newsgroup knows what horror it
> is to see an idle CPU. I keep mine busy.
keep it up and it won't hold for long... ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
whew! 50 hours for, what?, 10 choppers?! I beat you 2: I rendered 9 simple
glasses in 44 hours! my next project is to render a RSOCP in 100 hours! :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
>> I'm pretty sure a lot of people on this newsgroup knows what horror it
>> is to see an idle CPU. I keep mine busy.
>
> keep it up and it won't hold for long... ;)
This heavy usage indeed lowers CPU life, but not enough to be an issue,
because it would become obsolete way before that anyway. Quote:
> 2) Anything wears out faster when in action than when iddle (and
> especially when switching between active and iddle). The question isn't
> really relevant, you should rather ask if anything wears out faster than
> when its replacement would otherwise have been expected. (Whether a
> harddrive lasts 20 years or 10 years doesn't matter if you replace it in
> 5...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
> > Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
> >> I'm pretty sure a lot of people on this newsgroup knows what horror it
> >> is to see an idle CPU. I keep mine busy.
> >
> > keep it up and it won't hold for long... ;)
>
> This heavy usage indeed lowers CPU life, but not enough to be an issue,
> because it would become obsolete way before that anyway. Quote:
>
> > 2) Anything wears out faster when in action than when iddle (and
> > especially when switching between active and iddle). The question isn't
> > really relevant, you should rather ask if anything wears out faster than
> > when its replacement would otherwise have been expected. (Whether a
> > harddrive lasts 20 years or 10 years doesn't matter if you replace it in
> > 5...)
hmm, yes. But geeks don't think that way: we want to optimize and be
lightweight! If I can save my CPU from a burning death, I will do go out of my
way to do it. Other than halting povray, that is... :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> whew! 50 hours for, what?, 10 choppers?! I beat you 2: I rendered 9 simple
> glasses in 44 hours! my next project is to render a RSOCP in 100 hours! :P
No, only 3 hours. Plus 47 hours for creating a photon map from
badly-bounded shapes :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> hmm, yes. But geeks don't think that way: we want to optimize and be
> lightweight! If I can save my CPU from a burning death, I will do go out of my
> way to do it. Other than halting povray, that is... :)
Maybe the geeks you know. The geeks *I* know would buy more computers
just to run those distributed computing projects.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
> > whew! 50 hours for, what?, 10 choppers?! I beat you 2: I rendered 9 simple
> > glasses in 44 hours! my next project is to render a RSOCP in 100 hours! :P
>
> No, only 3 hours. Plus 47 hours for creating a photon map from
> badly-bounded shapes :)
oh! there are photons?! *scrutinizes image*
yes, there seems there are photons after all: they seem to show up in the
ground just below the shiny reflective chopper fronts. But problem is: from
the point-of-view chosen, it's hardly visible. Luckly, the photon map is
saved, and getting a close-up shot of the effect should be much easier. It
seems the only reason for the insane photon map build time is the high number
of reflective geometries there.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
