 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscape net> wrote:
> BGimeno <bru### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > The code is in povray.text.scene-files. Take this as a work in progress.
it is a beautiful object.
> > I think some parameters need readjustments.
> >
> > Intel® Core™ i7-3770 CPU @ 3.40GHz × 8
> > RAM 7,7 GiB
> > OS Ubuntu 18.04.1 LTS
> >
> > Render Time:
> > Photon Time: No photons
> > Radiosity Time: 0 hours 24 minutes 1 seconds (1441.334 seconds)
> > using 8 thread(s) with 11340.966 CPU-seconds total
> > Trace Time: 6 hours 1 minutes 38 seconds (21698.912 seconds)
> > using 8 thread(s) with 172774.191 CPU-seconds total
> >
> > Regards
> > BGimeno
>
> This looks good - but I'm confused.
> ...
> 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?
your reply to BGimeno encouraged me to try on my machine (lowly I3), and now I'm
confused. run with:
$ povray +w1024 +h768 +a0.05 +am2 +ag1 -j +q11 +itorus-test6.pov
parsing is well under a minute, and (4 threads) radiosity + trace total up to
under 20 minutes.
BGimeno: looks like your system would benefit from some tlc + admin. ;-)
regards, jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> parsing is well under a minute, and (4 threads) radiosity + trace total up to
> under 20 minutes.
just over 20 mins. </sighs>
parse: 52.5 s.
bounding: .05 s.
radiosity: 130.6 s.
trace: 1157.2 s.
regards, jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"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)
b) I don't see a radiosity block in this scene...
c) I copied your settings and pasted it into QTPOV-Ray like so:
+w1024 +h768 +a0.05 +am2 +ag1 -j +q11 +ITBTFH_2018-09-07.pov
Parser Time
Parse Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 49 seconds (49.470 seconds)
using 1 thread(s) with 0.-01 CPU-seconds total
Bounding Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 0 seconds (0.063 seconds)
using 1 thread(s) with 0.-01 CPU-seconds total
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
It took 1:24.
so, actually, quadruply confused - since it took over 13 min to do at work on
what I believe is an i5.
and this is my laptop at home:
System: Host: oem-Inspiron-N5110 Kernel: 4.10.0-38-generic x86_64 (64 bit
gcc: 5.4.0)
Desktop: Xfce 4.12.3 (Gtk 2.24.28) Distro: Linux Mint 18.3 Sylvia
Machine: System: Dell (portable) product: Inspiron N5110
Mobo: Dell model: 034W60 v: A07 Bios: Dell v: A07 date: 07/18/2011
CPU: Dual core Intel Core i5-2410M (-HT-MCP-) cache: 3072 KB
flags: (lm nx sse sse2 sse3 sse4_1 sse4_2 ssse3 vmx) bmips: 9179
clock speeds: max: 2900 MHz 1: 983 MHz 2: 818 MHz 3: 827 MHz
4: 833 MHz
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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)
> b) I don't see a radiosity block in this scene...
immediately below the '#include' lines, the (second) global_settings block.
> c) I copied your settings and pasted it into QTPOV-Ray like so:
>
> +w1024 +h768 +a0.05 +am2 +ag1 -j +q11 +ITBTFH_2018-09-07.pov
>
> Parser Time
> Parse Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 49 seconds (49.470 seconds)
> using 1 thread(s) with 0.-01 CPU-seconds total
> Bounding Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 0 seconds (0.063 seconds)
> using 1 thread(s) with 0.-01 CPU-seconds total
that's roughly en par.
> 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*.
> It took 1:24.
>
> so, actually, quadruply confused - since it took over 13 min to do at work on
> what I believe is an i5.
the work machine a Linux box too?
> and this is my laptop at home:
>
> System: Host: oem-Inspiron-N5110 Kernel: 4.10.0-38-generic x86_64 (64 bit
> gcc: 5.4.0)
> Desktop: Xfce 4.12.3 (Gtk 2.24.28) Distro: Linux Mint 18.3 Sylvia
> Machine: System: Dell (portable) product: Inspiron N5110
> Mobo: Dell model: 034W60 v: A07 Bios: Dell v: A07 date: 07/18/2011
> CPU: Dual core Intel Core i5-2410M (-HT-MCP-) cache: 3072 KB
> flags: (lm nx sse sse2 sse3 sse4_1 sse4_2 ssse3 vmx) bmips: 9179
> clock speeds: max: 2900 MHz 1: 983 MHz 2: 818 MHz 3: 827 MHz
> 4: 833 MHz
mine says 'Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-2100 CPU @ 3.10GHz. os is Slackware 14.1.
did you compile POV-Ray or installed a pre-built binary? fwiw, I compile + add
"-march=native -mtune=native" to the compiler flags.
regards, jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> 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
restrictions, but I found quality 9, 10, 11.
My message pane window displays the lower redundant value of 9.
> > 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...
> > 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.
> 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
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 :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
