 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I guess we should discuss the macro here, as images will be important items.
The macro can be found in p.b.s-f
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degroot org> wrote:
> I guess we should discuss the macro here, as images will be important items.
>
> The macro can be found in p.b.s-f
had a brief first look. it will be difficult to discuss fully, in isolation, I
guess, because various prefixes imply a place in a greater schema. one
immediate thing though is comments within the macro code/body, I have learned
from 'Foreach()' that moving comments out of the code does improve performance.
regards, jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Op 14/05/2021 om 23:38 schreef jr:
> hi,
>
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> I guess we should discuss the macro here, as images will be important items.
>>
>> The macro can be found in p.b.s-f
>
> had a brief first look. it will be difficult to discuss fully, in isolation, I
> guess, because various prefixes imply a place in a greater schema. one
> immediate thing though is comments within the macro code/body, I have learned
> from 'Foreach()' that moving comments out of the code does improve performance.
>
About the comments: yes I guess you are right; moving them should be
done indeed /before/ the final version and included into the Docs file.
Noted.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Op 14/05/2021 om 14:20 schreef Thomas de Groot:
> The macro can be found in p.b.s-f
>
Already the first corrections implemented! Beta #1.1 has been uploaded.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Op 14/05/2021 om 23:38 schreef jr:
> had a brief first look. it will be difficult to discuss fully, in isolation, I
> guess, because various prefixes imply a place in a greater schema. one
> immediate thing though is comments within the macro code/body, I have learned
> from 'Foreach()' that moving comments out of the code does improve performance.
>
My idea is/was that users simply try the different possibilities in
their own environment, primarily for usefulness in their own scenes,
like Dave Blandston has done. I guess that questions about the
/structure/ will come automatically, like yours about the "greater
scheme" (short answer: there isn't!). Those will probably lead to, e.g.,
name simplifications.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Op 14/05/2021 om 14:20 schreef Thomas de Groot:
>> The macro can be found in p.b.s-f
> Already the first corrections implemented! Beta #1.1 has been uploaded.
grabbed an old (comparison) scene, just for a quick test, hope to find time (and
a more interesting shape) to begin explore (some of) the settings. the
animation is just over the 5M limit, so have attached a frame.
on the first run the alpha.10064268 crashed at frame #46, something about a
doubly-linked list, but re-running with 'script' didn't reproduce.
fwiw, needed to add a second light source because I thought the image a little
dark, that quadrupled the per frame render time. :-)
regards, jr
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'icosa_anim_07.png' (352 KB)
Preview of image 'icosa_anim_07.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Op 15/05/2021 om 18:33 schreef jr:
> hi,
>
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> Op 14/05/2021 om 14:20 schreef Thomas de Groot:
>>> The macro can be found in p.b.s-f
>> Already the first corrections implemented! Beta #1.1 has been uploaded.
>
> grabbed an old (comparison) scene, just for a quick test, hope to find time (and
> a more interesting shape) to begin explore (some of) the settings. the
> animation is just over the 5M limit, so have attached a frame.
>
This looks very good indeed! The objects look smooth and a bit rough at
the same time: the normals do their job as they should!
> on the first run the alpha.10064268 crashed at frame #46, something about a
> doubly-linked list, but re-running with 'script' didn't reproduce.
>
> fwiw, needed to add a second light source because I thought the image a little
> dark, that quadrupled the per frame render time. :-)
>
That could be expected indeed. The macro is not very animation-friendly :-)
>
> regards, jr
>
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Op 15/05/2021 om 18:33 schreef jr:
> > ...
> > a more interesting shape) to begin explore (some of) the settings. ...
>
> This looks very good indeed! The objects look smooth and a bit rough at
> the same time: the normals do their job as they should!
thanks. not my doing. :-) both objs textured with your default.
> > fwiw, needed to add a second light source because I thought the image a little
> > dark, that quadrupled the per frame render time. :-)
> >
> That could be expected indeed. The macro is not very animation-friendly :-)
still, a massive increase, and, for me ("numpty") an unexpected "surprise".
perhaps a sentence or two in the documentation, regarding the .. sensitivity to
the environment.
regards, jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Op 16-5-2021 om 12:45 schreef jr:
> hi,
>
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> Op 15/05/2021 om 18:33 schreef jr:
>>> ...
>>> a more interesting shape) to begin explore (some of) the settings. ...
>>
>> This looks very good indeed! The objects look smooth and a bit rough at
>> the same time: the normals do their job as they should!
>
> thanks. not my doing. :-) both objs textured with your default.
>
>
>>> fwiw, needed to add a second light source because I thought the image a little
>>> dark, that quadrupled the per frame render time. :-)
>>>
>> That could be expected indeed. The macro is not very animation-friendly :-)
>
> still, a massive increase, and, for me ("numpty") an unexpected "surprise".
> perhaps a sentence or two in the documentation, regarding the .. sensitivity to
> the environment.
>
I am just thinking aloud here, but I wonder /what/ makes the render time
quadruple? I shall make some test on my side too, because I don not
entirely understand the phenomenon.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> ...
> I am just thinking aloud here, but I wonder /what/ makes the render time
> quadruple? I shall make some test on my side too, because I don not
> entirely understand the phenomenon.
no idea whether this info is any help. the scene was, apart from added
light_source, the same. both objects are a 'mesh2' type, the one on the right
with ("weighted average") normal_vectors.
regards, jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
