In article <3CF0DA09.45CC12B5@aol.com> , Dave Dunn <poi### [at] aolcom>  
wrote:

>  Dismissing experimental
> evidence out of had without at least running a few tests is hardly scientific.

This has nothing to do with science, so your argument is pointless.  You have
to show that it isn't your mistake.  You can hardly expect everybody else to
try to debug the problems in your scenes...

I can come up with an endless number of scenes that will render slow or faster
with POV-Ray 3.5 compared to some randomly picked other version of POV-Ray be
it official or unofficial.  That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with
POV-Ray.  Just running or or two tests scenes is not suitable to try to
uncover a bug if there should be any.  Unless you come up with some more
substantial evidence (you know the requirements for bug reports) that the
problem isn't in the scene, there is no known problem.


    Thorsten

Post a reply to this message

In article <3cf0f62d@news.povray.org> , "Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> 
wrote:

> ... which is presumably why this discussion is taking place in general
> rather than beta-test. I do think it deserves further investigation from
> someone who knows what they're doing (i.e. not me).

Well, given the information so far and given that nobody seems to think it is
a bug here either as otherwise I suppose someone claiming it could be one
would have posted in p.beta-test by now, why waste time on this?

Either those who claim this isn't right do report it and that way will get
some official explanation or they should be so kind and stop spreading rumors.
Unless someone reports it, it isn't going to be investigated, that is for
sure...


    Thorsten


____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich
e-mail: mac### [at] povrayorg

I am a member of the POV-Ray Team.
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in message
news:3cf106c8@news.povray.org...
>
> Either those who claim this isn't right do report it and that way will get
> some official explanation or they should be so kind and stop spreading
rumors.

Don't be so dramatic - I can think of many legitimate reasons why 3.5 should
render slower than MP7, and I'm not even a programmer. I don't claim it as a
bug or even a defficiency. If you like someone could post to beta-test, but
for all I know, 3.5's algorithms are legitimately slower by benefit of being
more accurate under more situations. I honestly think you're being
over-sensative. IT'S NOT A CRITICISM!

> Unless someone reports it, it isn't going to be investigated, that is for
> sure...

Alright - but I think you're being over-sensitive. Should I just report
"optics.pov" as the test file, or would you prefer it if I find a simpler
scene?

Post a reply to this message

In article <3cf132f8@news.povray.org> , "Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> 
wrote:

>> Either those who claim this isn't right do report it and that way will get
>> some official explanation or they should be so kind and stop spreading
> rumors.
>
> Don't be so dramatic - I can think of many legitimate reasons why 3.5 should
> render slower than MP7, and I'm not even a programmer. I don't claim it as a
> bug or even a defficiency. If you like someone could post to beta-test, but
> for all I know, 3.5's algorithms are legitimately slower by benefit of being
> more accurate under more situations. I honestly think you're being
> over-sensative. IT'S NOT A CRITICISM!

The issue of being slower is not the problem I am having with this thread, but
it is the spreading of rumors.  If someone is convinced something is wrong,
doesn't want to take the time to make a bug report but keeps insisting there
is something wrong it will eventually come up later like "someone once said it
is slow" even if it isn't or just was some mistake.  You may recall there have
been a few instances of this during the 3.5 beta with different issues
already...

>> Unless someone reports it, it isn't going to be investigated, that is for
>> sure...
>
> Alright - but I think you're being over-sensitive. Should I just report
> "optics.pov" as the test file, or would you prefer it if I find a simpler
> scene?

You get me wrong.  I do not have any time to check or test this and I wouldn't
even if I had.  I do not know if there is a problem or not.  Report what you
think is wrong so others see it and maybe it turns out there is something
wrong in "optics.pov" or elsewhere; or nothing is wrong.  Don't always expect
someone to come along and tell you to do something about it or what to do,
just do it yourself if you are convinced there is a problem!

    Thorsten

Post a reply to this message

"Mike Hough" <Ama### [at] aolcom> wrote...
> I tried using photons in a scene recently and was suprised at how long it
> took to render it in 3.5 RC5.  I'm posting in this group in case I'm
missing
> some subtle change in the photon syntax. The following scene at 320x240,
AA
> 0.3 takes 19 seconds to render in MegaPOV 0.5 and 3 minutes 37 seconds to
> render in RC5.

Since RC4 (or maybe RC5), POV 3.5 uses a slightly different algorithm to
compute the "initial gather search radius" for photons.  This new algorithm
is a bit more conservative in its selection of the search radius, which will
lead to higher quality results with much fewer artifacts.  However, this
means that the results will be slower than MegaPov's agressive approach.

I'm adding a new feature (as part of the radius keyword for the photon block
inside global settings) that will give the user more control over the
initial gather search radius.  This will allow power users to tweak the
search radius and decrease the size to increase speed (at the risk of adding
artifacts).  In the future I might come up with an even better algorithm for
computing the initial search radius, or even come up with a better adaptive
search radius.

-Nathan

Post a reply to this message

"Nathan Kopp" <nat### [at] koppcom> wrote in message
news:3cf1e5ab$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Since RC4 (or maybe RC5), POV 3.5 uses a slightly different algorithm
---snip---
> I'm adding a new feature (as part of the radius keyword for the photon
block
> inside global settings) that will give the user more control
---snip---

Yea! Nathan to the rescue!

bob h

Post a reply to this message