 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
How rapid is POV-DOS compared to POV-WIN? Is the speed difference
worth the trouble?
I ask this questions because I'll soon have quite an number of big images
to trace (big in pixel dimensions, quite number of csg object and many
complicated textures...). I would surely appreciate any time gained.
Computer: PII 233MHz, 64MRAM
Another speed question: from system monitor accessorie, I gather
that I have around 4M free memory left when I render my scene... but
the scene is currently around 1/4 or 1/5 completed and so will still grow
quite a bit. Should I buy more memory? What will be the penalty if I don't?
Any help or advice welcomed.
Thank You
Sincerely,
Philippe
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The DOS version is faster, but you might want to consider a recomplied
version that is available called Povpro. To quote the compiler...
"POVPro is a Win32 console port of generic UNIX version of POV-Ray --
it's not a "stripped" Windows version.
The name POVPro is given to this version to somehow distinguish it
from other existing versions, like POVWin. It has nothing to do with
"professional" or "Pentium Pro". It simply illustrates the fact that it
is made with Intel Reference C Compiler a.k.a Proton. Yet another
Intel's tool used is VTune 2.1 profiler."
It renders between 5% and 50% faster depending on the image. I find it
useful for final renders. It even has a couple of additional features
that the DOS version doesn't.
Unfortunately I can't remember where I got it. If you can't track it
down I could send you the zip file. It's a 371K file.
Mark King
Philippe Debar wrote:
>
> How rapid is POV-DOS compared to POV-WIN? Is the speed difference
> worth the trouble?
>
> I ask this questions because I'll soon have quite an number of big images
> to trace (big in pixel dimensions, quite number of csg object and many
> complicated textures...). I would surely appreciate any time gained.
>
> Computer: PII 233MHz, 64MRAM
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Philippe
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hello,
Mark King wrote in message <35D### [at] csi com>...
>The DOS version is faster, but you might want to consider a recomplied
>version that is available called Povpro. To quote the compiler...
I did not expect an alternate pov proposition, so I didn't specify this:
I am moving - that is I moved - to pov 3.1 and I am already too far to get
back to 3.02. I spent too many days coding my last and very important
project: around 97.7Kb of pure hand-crafted POV code, which is heavily
macro-ed. I guess that even a overall 50% speed-up wouldn't outweight
the time needed to convert the files.
|:-(
Too bad, because PovPro sounds good. Maybe later...
Thanks anyway
Sincerely,
Philippe
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The POV3.1b5 Win95 code claims to be compiled on a Pentium-II
optimized compiler, so to some degree POV-Pro is obsolete.
POV-Pro also contains some coding optimizations, so there would
still be some improvement from upgrading it to 3.1, though.
Dan
Philippe Debar wrote:
>
> Too bad, because PovPro sounds good. Maybe later...
--
http://www.flash.net/~djconnel/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
