 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/25/2016 7:27 PM, Alain wrote:
> Finaly, there is probably a network of balast "underground" to help
> balancing the whole thing.
I would say more than probably. On ships and semi-submersible oil rigs.
The balast has to be adjusted whenever the cargo changes.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 25.01.2016 um 23:11 schrieb Mike Horvath:
> Question: Should the density of the gas in the habitat area be
> significantly lower around the central axis than toward the outer edges
> of the cylinder? Or is it safe to ignore such a gradient?
Given the comparatively small size of the habitat, it should be negligible.
Presuming both artificial gravitation and ground level air pressure to
be similar to conditions on Earth, you'd also get a somewhat similar
atmospheric density gradient. (It would even be less pronounced than on
Earth, as the artificial gravitation would fall off much faster with
increase in height above ground.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/24/2016 7:17 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> Here's the latest render from inside the ship. Way too much glare! I
> will explore ways to reduce the glare but I'm not sure what will be
> effective.
>
>
> Mike
I forgot to add that this image took about a week to render. I just
turned on interior media and radiosity and it is rendering at 13ppm (and
will probably drop lower at certain spots). So I estimate it will take
between 1 and 2 months nonstop to fully render.
:(
AMD A8-5600K Trinity Quad-Core 3.6GHz
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 26.01.2016 um 09:34 schrieb Mike Horvath:
> I forgot to add that this image took about a week to render.
You might want to examine whether you're doing something wrong.
While high quality settings are an obvious factor in long renders,
another infamous but often underestimated performance hog is complex
non-union CSG.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/26/2016 3:49 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 26.01.2016 um 09:34 schrieb Mike Horvath:
>
>> I forgot to add that this image took about a week to render.
>
> You might want to examine whether you're doing something wrong.
>
> While high quality settings are an obvious factor in long renders,
> another infamous but often underestimated performance hog is complex
> non-union CSG.
>
I added a lot of bounded_by statements to the city objects previously.
If you want to take a look for yourself, you can download the scene here:
http://www.mediafire.com/download/ccp3kv21k3oldvl/GH_LoadingScreen_src_v2_6_0.zip
The file to render is called "gh_scene_spinner_cutaway_e.pov".
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/26/2016 3:34 AM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> On 1/24/2016 7:17 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
>> Here's the latest render from inside the ship. Way too much glare! I
>> will explore ways to reduce the glare but I'm not sure what will be
>> effective.
>>
>>
>> Mike
>
>
> I forgot to add that this image took about a week to render. I just
> turned on interior media and radiosity and it is rendering at 13ppm (and
> will probably drop lower at certain spots). So I estimate it will take
> between 1 and 2 months nonstop to fully render.
>
> :(
>
> AMD A8-5600K Trinity Quad-Core 3.6GHz
>
The render speed has actually improved to 75ppm. I am 17 hours into the
render and am at 8% completion of the 1280x720px image! Yay!
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thanks! :-D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Same problem here. Just to render a part of the central hull of my
starship, it takes several days. I think, the problem is too many
individual shapes (like boxes and such).
I heard about a plugin for SketchUp, that can export to our POV-Ray
scene description language. As mesh.I am considering to design a number
of elements of my ship in Sketchup as meshes, and then add those meshes
to my POV-Ray scenes. I believe, I will gain render speed by replacing
hundreds of box with one single mesh shape. Could I be right with my
assumption?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And I am happily rendering my spaceship at 17PPM. If I would render the
entire spaceship, I would expect to watch the finished render image in
somewhere in the 6th millennium AD...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/27/2016 11:32 AM, Sven Littkowski wrote:
> Same problem here. Just to render a part of the central hull of my
> starship, it takes several days. I think, the problem is too many
> individual shapes (like boxes and such).
>
> I heard about a plugin for SketchUp, that can export to our POV-Ray
> scene description language. As mesh.I am considering to design a number
> of elements of my ship in Sketchup as meshes, and then add those meshes
> to my POV-Ray scenes. I believe, I will gain render speed by replacing
> hundreds of box with one single mesh shape. Could I be right with my
> assumption?
>
I have not used SketchUp for some time and was going to say that most of
the models looked very blocky and not very well textured. Then I
rememberd that in the early days of TC-RTC a member used SketchUp with
VRay. The models don't need to be blocky.
Have a look at:
http://www.tc-rtc.co.uk/image/upload//chandan/pw-1250429739-final3.jpg
and his other one
http://www.tc-rtc.co.uk/image/upload//chandan/pw-1245100893-Evidence_2.jpg
But if you are going to learn a new modeller why not give Blender a try?
I know it has a steep learning curve but it is not as bad as it was.
In both PovRay plugins* you can use PovCode for texturing.
* There is an official PovRay exporter and LanuHum's unofficial one.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
