 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi,
>nothing else than a few millions of cylinders
On my whole screen there is not even one single million of individual
pixels and I don't think there are many around with "a few million"
pixels, let alone enough to show a few million instances of anything
larger than a single pixel.
Ciao, MM
--
http://www.marian-aldenhoevel.de
Opinions expressed here are my own AND those of my employer
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
> Hi,
>
> >nothing else than a few millions of cylinders
>
> On my whole screen there is not even one single million of individual
> pixels and I don't think there are many around with "a few million"
> pixels, let alone enough to show a few million instances of anything
> larger than a single pixel.
Good point. Simon: beware of aliasing.
-Mark Gordon
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <399EA958.52093EC9@yahoo.com>, lem### [at] yahoo com says...
> impossible with opengl... only possible with a raytracer... and then again I
> talked about Millions of cylinder... one day I might need Billions and so
What is the point of using so much objects? Unless you 're wanting to
render it at VERY high resolutions, they simply can't show up in your
scene, as there is more than one object per pixel... And probably the
objects in the front hide an enoumous amount of objects in the back.
You should really reduce the amount of objects. If you optimize it the
right way it should show no difference at all in the resulting image.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Aug 2000 13:24:16 -0700, ryan constantine wrote:
>again, why not use a mesh? in megapov they are solid and could be
>glass.
There's a common misconception here. An object need not be solid to be
made of glass. I've made glass boxes from meshes and even bicubic patches.
The trick is to make sure every transparent face of the object is associated
with the same interior{ } block.
--
Ron Parker http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
My opinions. Mine. Not anyone else's.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Billions of glass cylinders? Stop dreaming :)
>
> Well, perhaps if you have a render farm consisting of hundreds of Cray T3E
> computers with 2048 processors each and gigabytes of memory and running a
> multithreaded patch of povray...
Yes it seems impossible (with povray), but here come the Optimisation (might
need bachelor degree in computer science to achieve this...) it will ONLY
render glass cylinders! It won't be annoyed by anything else that would slow
the render...
IMHO,
Sin
--
+-------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Simon Lemieux | http://www.666Mhz.net |
| lem### [at] yahoocom | POV-Ray, OpenGL, C++ and more... |
+-------------------------+----------------------------------+
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Simon Lemieux <lem### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
: Yes it seems impossible (with povray), but here come the Optimisation (might
: need bachelor degree in computer science to achieve this...) it will ONLY
: render glass cylinders! It won't be annoyed by anything else that would slow
: the render...
If you really want to raytrace billions of glass cylinders, it will take
ages, no matter how optimized it is.
If you want it faster, you have to use some other algorithm than raytracing.
(I don't know if there's any.)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> If you want it faster, you have to use some other algorithm than raytracing.
> (I don't know if there's any.)
I would suggest photography, but then you would need billions of glass cylinders
;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I would suggest photography, but then you would need billions of glass cylinders
> ;-)
Yeah I thought about this.... but the problem here is not much the money... but
the cash, to buy the lens for my camera, etc...
;)
Simon
--
+-------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Simon Lemieux | http://www.666Mhz.net |
| lem### [at] yahoocom | POV-Ray, OpenGL, C++ and more... |
+-------------------------+----------------------------------+
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I would suggest waiting for quantum computers to become more readily available
(I'm assuming that they already exist but not in the public domain yet).
It would be an interesting exercise to start coding a raytracer for a quantum
computer - I know that algorithms already exist for factoring large numbers which
is likely to be used for cracking so called unbreakable encryption.
Simon Lemieux wrote:
> > Billions of glass cylinders? Stop dreaming :)
> >
> > Well, perhaps if you have a render farm consisting of hundreds of Cray T3E
> > computers with 2048 processors each and gigabytes of memory and running a
> > multithreaded patch of povray...
>
> Yes it seems impossible (with povray), but here come the Optimisation (might
> need bachelor degree in computer science to achieve this...) it will ONLY
> render glass cylinders! It won't be annoyed by anything else that would slow
> the render...
>
> IMHO,
> Sin
>
> --
> +-------------------------+----------------------------------+
> | Simon Lemieux | http://www.666Mhz.net |
> | lem### [at] yahoocom | POV-Ray, OpenGL, C++ and more... |
> +-------------------------+----------------------------------+
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <39A55274.77E3CFDE@hotmail.removethisbit.com>,
ric### [at] hotmailremovethisbitcom says...
> I would suggest waiting for quantum computers to become more readily available
> (I'm assuming that they already exist but not in the public domain yet).
Yes. The "biggest" they build so far was assembled of 3 atoms oder so ;-)
> computer - I know that algorithms already exist for factoring large numbers which
> is likely to be used for cracking so called unbreakable encryption.
Of course thay exists. They only have the small flaw that they would take
at least a few centuries to decrypt a single message.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
