Am 08.09.2018 um 00:43 schrieb jr:
> hi,
> 
> "Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>> "jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>
>>>> parsing is well under a minute, and (4 threads) radiosity ....
>>
>> So, I'm triply confused.
>> a)  There's a quality 11?    (Throws horns, bangs head)
> 
> :-)  section (docs v3.8, section 3.2.8.3)

Heck, even I wasn't aware of this ;)

Post a reply to this message

hi,

"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> > > a)  There's a quality 11?    (Throws horns, bangs head)
> > :-)  section (docs v3.8, section 3.2.8.3)
>
> I see.
> For some reason the page I went to specified that section as I/O no

strange.  double-checked, the section number's correct, and unchanged from the
3.7 docs.

> restrictions, but I found quality 9, 10, 11.
> My message pane window displays the lower redundant value of 9.

the default.  I'm guessing that the Windows version must do the same "behind
your back" when radiosity is detected.

> > > b) I don't see a radiosity block in this scene...
> > immediately below the '#include' lines, the (second) global_settings block.
> Oh THAT radiosity "block".
> First of all, that's a radiosity LINE, son.
> And second of all, these damned dried frog pills that I imported from Scotland
> send up a cloud of dust every time I bite into them, so I missed that sections
> when I was scrolling down...

heh.  "Should have gone to Specsavers.."  ;-)

> > > Render Time:
> > >   Photon Time:      No photons
> > >   Radiosity Time:   No radiosity
> > >   Trace Time:       0 hours  0 minutes 33 seconds (33.499 seconds)
> > >               using 4 thread(s) with 0.-04 CPU-seconds total
> >
> > and that is *fast*.
>
> Well YEAH - WITHOUT radiosity.
> I enable that commented line, and it took 27:40.   I thought I was doing ok when
> it was at 3:30 and started actually rendering a visible scene, but then it hit
> that BTFH....  :|
>
>
> > the work machine a Linux box too?
>
> Nope.
> And now that you mention it, it's a 32-bit Win 7 box that has some
> network-linked account......   I wonder what else that's slowing down....
> That would explain a LOT about some of my spreadsheet woes.

I thought you worked in .. paradise.  can you not build another?

(I once read in someone's sig block: "Computers are like air-condition, you open
Windows and they stop working"  :-))

> > did you compile POV-Ray or installed a pre-built binary?  fwiw, I compile + add
> > "-march=native -mtune=native" to the compiler flags.
>
> I installed it as per Dick Balaska's instructions, so I'm just hoping he knows
> what he's doing   :D

you'd have to ask him.  ;-)

> Parser Time
>   Parse Time:       0 hours  0 minutes 47 seconds (47.337 seconds)
>               using 1 thread(s) with 0.-01 CPU-seconds total
>   Bounding Time:    0 hours  0 minutes  0 seconds (0.059 seconds)
>               using 1 thread(s) with 0.-01 CPU-seconds total
>
> Render Time:
>   Photon Time:      No photons
>   Radiosity Time:   0 hours  2 minutes 40 seconds (160.610 seconds)
>               using 4 thread(s) with 0.-04 CPU-seconds total
>   Trace Time:       0 hours 24 minutes 10 seconds (1450.793 seconds)
>               using 4 thread(s) with 0.-04 CPU-seconds total
>
> So it seems that your i3 is doing just fine   :)

yes, not too shabby.  the times are for 'qtpovray' I take it?

will follow this up tomorrow, I've been playing with the colour and the latest
run was two minutes faster (!!) than the previous.  need to chck this further.


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/09/2018 01:18, Bald Eagle wrote:
> And second of all, these damned dried frog pills that I imported from Scotland
> send up a cloud of dust every time I bite into them, so I missed that sections
> when I was scrolling down...

A cloud, you say. That sounds like dried midgie pills. (Highland midge: 
Culicoides impunctatus) Generally used as groundbait or to keep horses 
docile. ;)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> Is that "stripe" supposed to be missing?
> (I like the effect anyway  :) )
....
     310, // minor_r_ends ; the arc formed by smaller radius
complete "n-degrees"

     360*5, // degrees of torsion around the minor radius

.....
The minor arc does not close completely, and then the final segment is 
rotated five times. Play with it little by little.

> This took about 13 min to parse on my tower at work, and not very long to render
> for me - what are those huge times you're posting?

Radiosity and focal blur were deactivated in the code I sent.
> 
> The torus that I'm working on doesn't take nearly that much time to parse on my
> laptop.
Maybe I'm subdividing a lot of nested loops of bicubic_patchs?
> 
> I'll send you an email and maybe we can compare notes.
> 
> 
B. Gimeno

Post a reply to this message

> On 08/09/2018 01:18, Bald Eagle wrote:
>> And second of all, these damned dried frog pills that I imported from 
>> Scotland
>> send up a cloud of dust every time I bite into them, so I missed that 
>> sections
>> when I was scrolling down...
> 
> A cloud, you say. That sounds like dried midgie pills. (Highland midge: 
> Culicoides impunctatus) Generally used as groundbait or to keep horses 
> docile. ;)
> 
If this is true, it seems that the time is coming to compile my own 
version in Ubuntu.

Regards
B.Gimeno

Post a reply to this message

On 08/09/2018 08:38, BGimeno wrote:

>> On 08/09/2018 01:18, Bald Eagle wrote:
>>> And second of all, these damned dried frog pills that I imported from 
>>> Scotland
>>> send up a cloud of dust every time I bite into them, so I missed that 
>>> sections
>>> when I was scrolling down...
>>
>> A cloud, you say. That sounds like dried midgie pills. (Highland 
>> midge: Culicoides impunctatus) Generally used as groundbait or to keep 
>> horses docile. ;)
>>
> If this is true, it seems that the time is coming to compile my own 
> version in Ubuntu.
> 

Of course it's true.
Trust me I am a Pover. ;)


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

hi,

"jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> will follow this up tomorrow, I've been playing with the colour and the latest
> run was two minutes faster (!!) than the previous.  need to chck this further.

I changed the colour of the filigree to 'BrightGold', and the return value of
the CW_angle macro (ie use the other colour).

that more than doubled the radiosity time, from ~130s to ~348s, and the render
went up from about 20 minutes to:

Render Time:
  Photon Time:      No photons
  Radiosity Time:   0 hours  5 minutes 48 seconds (348.012 seconds)
              using 4 thread(s) with 1384.908 CPU-seconds total
  Trace Time:       0 hours 31 minutes 50 seconds (1910.868 seconds)
              using 4 thread(s) with 7562.702 CPU-seconds total

the difference between white + gold filigree is around 3.5 minutes for the
original Cw_angle, and 4.5 minutes for the 5-colour version, white being slower.

now I would like to find out how to increase the translucence of the rhomboids.

regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'snip.png' (309 KB)

Preview of image 'snip.png'

Am 08.09.2018 um 13:45 schrieb jr:
> now I would like to find out how to increase the translucence of the rhomboids.

Are you aiming for semi-transparency or diffuse translucency?

Post a reply to this message

Le 18-09-07 à 18:24, Bald Eagle a écrit :
> "jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> 
>>> parsing is well under a minute, and (4 threads) radiosity ....
> 
> So, I'm triply confused.
> a)  There's a quality 11?    (Throws horns, bangs head)
> 

Yes, but quality 10 and 11 are functionally the same as 9.

Post a reply to this message

> now I would like to find out how to increase the translucence of the rhomboids.
>
> regards, jr.

Look in the last line of the CW_angle macro, I deactivated the values
​​of transparency and filters to avoid warning messages.
The code is a little clumsy and needs many fixes to avoid duplicate code here
and there. Patience.

BGimeno

Pd. Don't call them rhomboids, they are squares subjected to great tension. Very
sensitive polygons.

Post a reply to this message