On 9/14/20 5:26 PM, Ton wrote:
> William F Pokorny <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Are the results more or less similar?
>> I know uber differs in code structure. I've myself run across an am3
>> case in v3.8 where the run time - on a solid color change - increased
>> 100x. Not yet dug into the latter. Beyond that, no idea.
>> If the AntiAliasingTest.pov scene is relatively small and self
>> contained, could you post a copy? I'll at least put it in my issues
>> directory, though who knows when I might take a look at it.
>> Bill P.
> Wow, a hundred times slower, and I was complaining about 5 times!
> Here is my little test file:
Had to recompile my uberpov. The system libraries had changed since I
last compiled. Compiling uber now a bit of a pain as a good many code
and header updates are needed...
Whining ahead of my first morning coffee I guess. :-)
I'll post an image to binary.images, but answering my initial question -
the results are not similar. p380 is am3 working better with your flag
set than is uberpov. This I believe explains the run time difference(1).
Running compiles of the latest commit of both versions, I see the
following slow down uber to v3.8:
2.4 -> 13.02 ---> 442.50%
I also see a bug because in v3.8 we are getting the am3 stats:
...Samples: 0 Smpls/Pxl: 0.00
where we should see >0 samples and samples/pixel >1.0.
(Jim, I see a slight difference v3.7 to v3.8 scene version too 0.5% or
so - not sure what's up there. For performance I run single threaded.
I'd need to do runs forcing longer run times to be sure how real that
difference is I guess - another day perhaps)
(1) - I have a mental itch there was some difference in flag usage
between uberpov and the initial v3.8 implementation - but it's just not
coming to me. Anyone else recall something? Looking at the commit for
v3.8 where am3 came in, it did have additional changes to the base over
uberpov in planning for better interaction with other features like
media. What has or has not been done in that respect for am3 support I
do not know.
Post a reply to this message