 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 19:42:08 -0800, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbell net> wrote:
>I learned how to use Pov before the documentation even had all
>of those pretty, little pictures. In fact you folks would
>get a real kick out of reading the docs for DKBTrace and Pov v1.0.
>Now those were the days - Not !
I'm with Ken. Upon reading this thread, I was trying to remember how
I learned POV, but it was so long ago it's all just a hazy memory.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I remember reading the 147 pages, 7-point font POV 1.0 docs by the light
of an oil lamp in my 1993 underground cave. I had deleted all the blank
lines and some stuff (credits...) with Word 5 to save papyrus. I never
had to print any POV docs after that.
Gilles Tran
"Ronald L. Parker" wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 19:42:08 -0800, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
>
> >I learned how to use Pov before the documentation even had all
> >of those pretty, little pictures. In fact you folks would
> >get a real kick out of reading the docs for DKBTrace and Pov v1.0.
> >Now those were the days - Not !
>
> I'm with Ken. Upon reading this thread, I was trying to remember how
> I learned POV, but it was so long ago it's all just a hazy memory.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
>
> I remember reading the 147 pages, 7-point font POV 1.0 docs by the light
> of an oil lamp in my 1993 underground cave. I had deleted all the blank
> lines and some stuff (credits...) with Word 5 to save papyrus. I never
> had to print any POV docs after that.
> Gilles Tran
And I thought I was a lone rebel when I edited the 2.2 doc's for
space and content. Don't tell anybody but I even rearranged some
of the sections for continuity. Shhhh !
--
Ken Tyler
tyl### [at] pacbellnet
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Jan 1999 17:14:20 +0100, Gilles Tran <tra### [at] inapginrafr>
wrote:
>I remember reading the 147 pages, 7-point font POV 1.0 docs by the light
>of an oil lamp in my 1993 underground cave. I had deleted all the blank
>lines and some stuff (credits...) with Word 5 to save papyrus. I never
>had to print any POV docs after that.
>Gilles Tran
I remember doing the same thing - deleting all the blank lines,
setting the point size to 6 or 7, and squeezing it into three
columns. I don't remember how many pages it was, but that was
the POV 2.2 docs, so they were a bit smaller. After that, I
found a copy of RTC in the local bookstore and bought it. That
was easily the best way ever to learn POV-Ray - lots of pictures,
text, and code samples, plus the reference section at the back,
and all written by people who really know their stuff. I still
have it. I've got a friend I'm working on getting hooked on POV
and I'll probably lend it to her to get started with.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From the benchmarks I've seen for versions prior to 2.2, it would seem
there was plenty of time to read the docs ( and War and Peace, Moby
Dick, some Encyclopedias...)
-Mike
Ken wrote:
>
> Spider wrote:
> >
> > hehe, am I the only one who took a look at the jibberish in the file, gave up, and
opened
> > te example files in a normal text-editor, trying to find out what was what ?
> > Well, once that was passed, I had the basics on it, I went into the doc's and read
all of
> > the things I had caught, learning the tips and trix on the way :-)
> >
> > //Spider
> >
> > Mike wrote:
> > >
> > > I skipped that section. :)
> > >
> > > Actually, that's not entirely true. First I drew out some patches on
> > > grid paper, tried to input it by hand, rendered it...then skipped that
> > > section.
> > >
> > > -Mike
> > >
> > > Dan Connelly wrote:
> > > >
> > > > When I first downloaded POV, I got to the bicubic patch section of the
tutorial,
> > > > was utterly and totally confused, put it aside and let it sit idle for around
> > > > 6 months..... I almost purged it from my system until I entered IRTC
> > > > with Ray Dream Studio and received several comments that I should have
> > > > used POV-Ray instead. So instead of following tutorials, I tried
> > > > to reproduce my Ray Dream Studio image in POV by using the reference section,
> > > > realized how elegent and simple it was, and became hooked. But the tutorial
> > > > almost lost me..... I came very close to uninstalling it from my disk.
> > > >
> > > > Dan
> > > >
> > > > > Tutorials must flow. Our current tutorial teaches bicubic_patch before box
> > > > > & cone because it comes first alphabetically! That's stupid!
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > http://www.flash.net/~djconnel/
>
> I learned how to use Pov before the documentation even had all
> of those pretty, little pictures. In fact you folks would
> get a real kick out of reading the docs for DKBTrace and Pov v1.0.
> Now those were the days - Not !
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> tyl### [at] pacbellnet
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike wrote:
>
> From the benchmarks I've seen for versions prior to 2.2, it would seem
> there was plenty of time to read the docs ( and War and Peace, Moby
> Dick, some Encyclopedias...)
>
> -Mike
I'm not sure that's an altogether fair assesment. You
have to remember a 386-33 was a fast machine when v2.2 was
current. I still have v2.2 on my system and use it a couple
of times a month. It is not that slow and believe it or not
it handles large triangle files better than 3.1 does.
Just before I logged on I was trying to get a 4 meg mesh
file to render. I kept getting syntax errors up the wazoo.
I think there is a problem with the way Pov reads the scene
out of the memory buffer, once the first run is executed,
instead of off of the disk for each render. I tried repeatedly
to correct the phantom errors, saved the file, hit the render
button and the corrected(?)syntax problem reappeared. The
funny part is there is no real syntax problem in the scene.
Pov just thinks there is. For some reason I don't think it
is updating the memory buffer when the file is saved to
disk. It only occurs on large files but it is frustrating.
Anyway I gave up, changed the mesh to a union, changed a
couple of minor version problems and fired up 2.2.
Guess what !
After fixing two degenrate triangles it rendered immediatly
without so much as a hiccup <hic !>.
***And*** the render time was entirely acceptable.
I guess dos handles memory better than windows does :)
In conclusion I disagree with your statement.
--
Ken Tyler
tyl### [at] pacbellnet
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I said prior to 2.2, which introduced bounding as I understand. This is
part of the article in Ray Tracing News that I based my impression on:
...The POV developers sent me a beta of POVRAY 2.0 so that the snail's
pace of 1.0 could be (massively) improved...
Timings - default size SPD databases (i.e. up to 10,000 objects in a
scene), time in seconds on HP 720 workstation, optimized and gprof
profiled code. Includes time to read in the ASCII data file and set up.
Note that profiling slows down the execution times, so real times would
be somewhat faster in all cases (about 30%); plus, the profiler itself
is good to +-10%. Also, these timings are purely for this machine -
results will vary considerably depending on the platform (see David
Hook's article). Now that I've explained why these are useless, here
goes:
balls gears mount rings teapot tetra tree
Art/Vort 478 1315 239 595 235 84 381
Art/Vort +float 415 1129 206 501 203 72 327
Rayshade w/tweak 188 360 174 364 145 61 163
Rayshade w/grid 1107 412 174 382 145 61 1915
Radiance 289 248 165 601 150 42 197
Bob 402 747 230 831 245 50 266
RTrace 664 1481 813 1343 341 153 372
RTrace c6 m0 652 1428 811 1301 331 155 363
POV 2.0beta+ 588 1895 668 1113 306 56 542
POV 1.0 191000 1775000 409000 260000 45000 31000 250000
Here are timing ratios (i.e. 1 is the fastest time for a given test,
with the other timings normalized to this value):
balls gears mount rings teapot tetra tree
Art/Vort 2.54 5.30 1.45 1.63 1.62 2.00 2.34
Art/Vort +float 2.21 4.55 1.25 1.38 1.40 1.71 2.01
Rayshade w/tweak 1 1.45 1.05 1 1 1.45 1
Rayshade w/grid 5.89 1.66 1.05 1.05 1 1.45 11.75
Radiance 1.54 1 1 1.65 1.03 1 1.21
Bob 2.14 3.01 1.39 2.28 1.69 1.19 1.63
RTrace 3.53 5.97 4.93 3.69 2.35 3.64 2.28
RTrace c6 m0 3.47 5.76 4.92 3.57 2.28 3.69 2.23
POV 2.0beta+ 3.13 7.64 4.05 3.06 2.11 1.33 3.33
POV 1.0 1015.96 7157.26 2478.79 714.29 310.34 738.10 1533.74
...POV 2.0 has an efficiency scheme built in and so is comparable to the
others, so don't get freaked out by the POV 1.0 performance numbers.
-Mike
Ken wrote:
>
> Mike wrote:
> >
> > From the benchmarks I've seen for versions prior to 2.2, it would seem
> > there was plenty of time to read the docs ( and War and Peace, Moby
> > Dick, some Encyclopedias...)
> >
> > -Mike
>
> I'm not sure that's an altogether fair assesment. You
> have to remember a 386-33 was a fast machine when v2.2 was
> current. I still have v2.2 on my system and use it a couple
> of times a month. It is not that slow and believe it or not
> it handles large triangle files better than 3.1 does.
> Just before I logged on I was trying to get a 4 meg mesh
> file to render. I kept getting syntax errors up the wazoo.
>
> I think there is a problem with the way Pov reads the scene
> out of the memory buffer, once the first run is executed,
> instead of off of the disk for each render. I tried repeatedly
> to correct the phantom errors, saved the file, hit the render
> button and the corrected(?)syntax problem reappeared. The
> funny part is there is no real syntax problem in the scene.
> Pov just thinks there is. For some reason I don't think it
> is updating the memory buffer when the file is saved to
> disk. It only occurs on large files but it is frustrating.
>
> Anyway I gave up, changed the mesh to a union, changed a
> couple of minor version problems and fired up 2.2.
>
> Guess what !
>
> After fixing two degenrate triangles it rendered immediatly
> without so much as a hiccup <hic !>.
>
> ***And*** the render time was entirely acceptable.
>
> I guess dos handles memory better than windows does :)
>
> In conclusion I disagree with your statement.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> tyl### [at] pacbellnet
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
