|
 |
Btw, if you need help rendering some part of the image, this computer
(Sun Ultra5 333MHz) is available. I can help you rendering it.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
Mick Hazelgrove wrote:
> I not sure about that - there's no disc activity at all , it parses in a few
> seconds {there's only about 5000 objects) and there's no disk activty from
> then on.
Actually, when you think of it, POV couldn't do that anyway. If it's allocating
memory without freeing any of it up until it's done, it would be as sequential
as possible, right? The problem is when you're multitasking with big files...
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricy net> ICQ 55354965
Please visit my website: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
Mick Hazelgrove wrote:
>
> I not sure about that - there's no disc activity at all , it parses in a few
> seconds {there's only about 5000 objects) and there's no disk activty from
> then on.
Did you think about using a higher adc_bailout and/or a lower
max_trace_level ??
It could render much faster with that, without *visible* effects...
Just my .02.
Bouf.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
