 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Plain PaperTry this link
http://headline.gamespot.com/news/99_07/23_pc_nvidia/index.html
Looks like the next generation of video boards may start doing some of the
math currently done in POV.
--
Jim
Check out my web site http://www.kressworks.com/
It'll blow your mind (politically), stimulate your senses (artistically)
and provide scientific insights that boggle the mind!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Kress wrote:
>
> Plain PaperTry this link
> http://headline.gamespot.com/news/99_07/23_pc_nvidia/index.html
>
> Looks like the next generation of video boards may start doing some of the
> math currently done in POV.
>
> --
> Jim
>
> Check out my web site http://www.kressworks.com/
> It'll blow your mind (politically), stimulate your senses (artistically)
> and provide scientific insights that boggle the mind!
Sorry Jim but it won't help Pov in this case.
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/links.htm
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Really? Even with the onboard shading, lighting, and rendering functions?
Or would a card specific version of POV be required to take care of those
functions?
--
Jim
Check out my web site http://www.kressworks.com/
It'll blow your mind (politically), stimulate your senses (artistically)
and provide scientific insights that boggle the mind!
Ken <tyl### [at] pacbell net> wrote in message
news:379### [at] pacbellnet...
>
>
> Jim Kress wrote:
> >
> > Plain PaperTry this link
> > http://headline.gamespot.com/news/99_07/23_pc_nvidia/index.html
> >
> > Looks like the next generation of video boards may start doing some of
the
> > math currently done in POV.
> >
> > --
> > Jim
> >
> > Check out my web site http://www.kressworks.com/
> > It'll blow your mind (politically), stimulate your senses (artistically)
> > and provide scientific insights that boggle the mind!
>
> Sorry Jim but it won't help Pov in this case.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
> http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/links.htm
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Kress wrote:
>
> Really? Even with the onboard shading, lighting, and rendering functions?
> Or would a card specific version of POV be required to take care of those
> functions?
>
> --
> Jim
With the current way that Pov works it calculates each pixel internal to the
program before it outputs to the screen. There are no internal routines that
take advantage of external hardware accelerations. If you read the literature
carefully they make reference to direct x and openGL instruction sets which
are specificaly written to take advantage of such abilities. Pov works in a
completely different way. There's has been a lot of talk about writting an
openGL preview mode for Pov but it is problematic and would still not help
for final renders. Quality of the images produced but direct X and openGL
are inferior to Pov's raytracing methods anyway and I personaly think it
would be a step backward.
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/links.htm
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
What Ken states is true. However, there are accelerator boards for professional
graphics that will accelerate POV-Ray. Daystar sells them for the Mac.
Basically, they work by replacing your motherboard with a quad-CPU motherboard.
They are expensive and top out at 1,800 mhz.
If you really want speed, Silicon Graphics has a motherboard that can support
256 alpha RISC CPU's which are now running at 1,000 mhz for a total speed of
256,000 mhz. Better have some really deep pockets for this.
A low budget solution is to get a dual Pentium Dell server and run it as a
workstation.
steve
Ken wrote:
> Jim Kress wrote:
> >
> > Really? Even with the onboard shading, lighting, and rendering functions?
> > Or would a card specific version of POV be required to take care of those
> > functions?
> >
> > --
> > Jim
>
> With the current way that Pov works it calculates each pixel internal to the
> program before it outputs to the screen. There are no internal routines that
> take advantage of external hardware accelerations. If you read the literature
> carefully they make reference to direct x and openGL instruction sets which
> are specificaly written to take advantage of such abilities. Pov works in a
> completely different way. There's has been a lot of talk about writting an
> openGL preview mode for Pov but it is problematic and would still not help
> for final renders. Quality of the images produced but direct X and openGL
> are inferior to Pov's raytracing methods anyway and I personaly think it
> would be a step backward.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
> http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/links.htm
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Steve <ste### [at] puzzlecraftcom> wrote in message
news:379AF3E8.AF37E7C3@puzzlecraft.com...
>
>
> A low budget solution is to get a dual Pentium Dell server and run it as a
> workstation.
>
Can you elaborate on this a little? I have been having some sort of
thought like this... getting a box and a motherboard and a network card and
using that box to do nothing but renders. No keyboard, monitor, mouse,
soundcard, videocard, with smallest possible HD, lots of RAM...
But, since I have never done any networking but some serial port copying
of HDs...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
What Bill is suggesting is buying a server similar too those found in
offices and running povray on that. What you're thinking of is buying a
bare-bones system to run POV. If you did that you'd still need the
keyboard, mouse and videocard (at the very least to install Windows
etc.) but you could save on the monitor by having a switch box (using
your existing monitor) or running it remotely using a piece of software
such as CarbonCopy. Networking is getting very cheap and what you're
suggesting is entierly possible, all you would need is the two network
cards, a cable and the software (Windows.) I've been doing this
successfully for nearly a year and only had a few minor problems.
Graham.
Bill DeWitt wrote:
>
> Steve <ste### [at] puzzlecraftcom> wrote in message
> news:379AF3E8.AF37E7C3@puzzlecraft.com...
> >
> >
> > A low budget solution is to get a dual Pentium Dell server and run it as a
> > workstation.
> >
>
> Can you elaborate on this a little? I have been having some sort of
> thought like this... getting a box and a motherboard and a network card and
> using that box to do nothing but renders. No keyboard, monitor, mouse,
> soundcard, videocard, with smallest possible HD, lots of RAM...
>
> But, since I have never done any networking but some serial port copying
> of HDs...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> If you really want speed, Silicon Graphics has a motherboard that can
support
> 256 alpha RISC CPU's which are now running at 1,000 mhz for a total speed
of
> 256,000 mhz. Better have some really deep pockets for this.
Sillygon Graphics have an ALPHA cpu running at a 1000Mhz,,
I thought digital (compaq) uses/builds alpha processors and SGI uses MIPS
(R12K being the latest edition, running at 300Mhz), and a SINGLE motherboard
supporting 256 CPU's, I know that their deskside origin2000 sports 1-4 node
cards, 2-8 cpu's. And an Origin2000 rack system can house 1-256 node cards,
2-512 cpu's (R10K or R12K), but that's the entire rack-system, not a single
motherboard.
Could you please give some details on this?
Regards, Jens Berg Churchill.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 20:44:02 -0700, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
>Quality of the images produced but direct X and openGL
>are inferior to Pov's raytracing methods anyway and I personaly think it
>would be a step backward.
True, Ken. These cards are great for their intended use but we would see
no advantage. I don't think that incorporating OpenGL into POV-Ray would be
anything to crow about. We've already fast previews with more control by
using the quality switches (+q). OpenGL might be better suited to displays
from modeling programs, although I like Moray just the way it is now.
--
Alan
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.povray.org - Home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer
news.povray.org - where POV-Ray enthusiasts around the world can get
together to exchange ideas, information, and experiences with others
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alan Kong wrote:
>
> On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 20:44:02 -0700, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
>
> >Quality of the images produced but direct X and openGL
> >are inferior to Pov's raytracing methods anyway and I personaly think it
> >would be a step backward.
>
> True, Ken. These cards are great for their intended use but we would see
> no advantage. I don't think that incorporating OpenGL into POV-Ray would be
> anything to crow about. We've already fast previews with more control by
> using the quality switches (+q). OpenGL might be better suited to displays
> from modeling programs, although I like Moray just the way it is now.
>
> --
> Alan
I think I summed it up very well in the VFAQ. If you want to play games and
mpeg movies on your system then by all means buy a good harware accelerated
graphics card. If speed is a concern in raytracing then buy a fast processor,
with a mother board the has a fast buss, good amounts of level one and 2 cache
memory for swapping out instructions, and tons of fast system ram. Then sit
back and wait cause raytracing is a slow process no matter what kind of system
you can afford to buy :)
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/links.htm
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
