Can't you do this "in" a raytracer: make an orthogonal trace of two boxes, each
with image maps on them. Don't use Corel, if 25 non-voters say yes in this
forum, you could have 75 voters in the real contest be offended and give you
0-0-0.

Mick Hazelgrove wrote:

> My entry won't render for at least 3 months. It's currently rendering at 15
> hours a line and slowing down.
>
> How do people feel about taking the top half which renders in about 3 hours
> and the bottom half which takes about 6 hours  and joing them in Corel
> Draw -  is this bending the rules?
>
> What do you think?
>
> Mick

Post a reply to this message

To my knowledge this is perfectly legal. In fact I think there was a recent
entry that did that.

From the IRTC FAQ
[1.1.15] How about rendering my image in two / three / twenty-six parts and
then combining them? Is that post-processing?
It is post-processing, but it doesn't affect the actual pixels of the images,
so it is perfectly legal.

Have at it. Can't wait to see it.

Josh

Mick Hazelgrove wrote:

> My entry won't render for at least 3 months. It's currently rendering at 15
> hours a line and slowing down.
>
> How do people feel about taking the top half which renders in about 3 hours
> and the bottom half which takes about 6 hours  and joing them in Corel
> Draw -  is this bending the rules?
>
> What do you think?
>
> Mick

--
Josh English -- Lexiphanic Lethomaniac
eng### [at] spiritonecom
The POV-Ray Cyclopedia http://www.spiritone.com/~english/cyclopedia/

Post a reply to this message

I don't see a problem with it.  I am curious though how it's taking 15 hours
a line,
but in two pieces it only takes 9 hours.


- Doug Eichenberg
  http://www.getinfo.net/douge
  dou### [at] nlsnet

Post a reply to this message

I wish I knew, It's very messy CSG, and Media and reflection, meshes,
bicubic patches, HFs Uncle Tom Cobley an' all!

Mick

"Doug Eichenberg" <dou### [at] nlsnet> wrote in message
news:399493f4@news.povray.org...
> I don't see a problem with it.  I am curious though how it's taking 15
hours
> a line,
> but in two pieces it only takes 9 hours.
>
>
> - Doug Eichenberg
>   http://www.getinfo.net/douge
>   dou### [at] nlsnet
>
>

Post a reply to this message

It is probably Windows' sh*tty memory management. When stuff overflows into
swap it gets all fragmented and Windows takes forever to allocate and recall
it, and after prolonged virtual memory use the system can even become
violently unstable.

Mick Hazelgrove wrote:

> I wish I knew, It's very messy CSG, and Media and reflection, meshes,
> bicubic patches, HFs Uncle Tom Cobley an' all!
>
> "Doug Eichenberg" <dou### [at] nlsnet> wrote in message
> news:399493f4@news.povray.org...
> > I don't see a problem with it.  I am curious though how it's taking 15
> hours
> > a line,
> > but in two pieces it only takes 9 hours.

--
David Fontaine     <dav### [at] faricynet>     ICQ 55354965
Please visit my website: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/

Post a reply to this message

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.

Mick

"David Fontaine" <dav### [at] faricynet> wrote in message
news:3994DE14.E4938D32@faricy.net...
> It is probably Windows' sh*tty memory management. When stuff overflows
into
> swap it gets all fragmented and Windows takes forever to allocate and
recall
> it, and after prolonged virtual memory use the system can even become
> violently unstable.
>
> Mick Hazelgrove wrote:
>
> > I wish I knew, It's very messy CSG, and Media and reflection, meshes,
> > bicubic patches, HFs Uncle Tom Cobley an' all!
> >
> > "Doug Eichenberg" <dou### [at] nlsnet> wrote in message
> > news:399493f4@news.povray.org...
> > > I don't see a problem with it.  I am curious though how it's taking 15
> > hours
> > > a line,
> > > but in two pieces it only takes 9 hours.
>
> --
> David Fontaine     <dav### [at] faricynet>     ICQ 55354965
> Please visit my website: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Mick Hazelgrove <mic### [at] mhazelgrovefsnetcouk> wrote:
: How do people feel about taking the top half which renders in about 3 hours
: and the bottom half which takes about 6 hours  and joing them in Corel
: Draw -  is this bending the rules?

  I used about 7 computers for one of my irtc images. I stated this clearly
in the txt file and even described in detail what I did.
  It didn't affect at all. It's ok.
  And why it should, anyways? That's what distributed rendering is all about.

-- 
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

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] faricynet>     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