 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:20:20 +0200, Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmx de>
wrote:
> My IRTC picture has meanwhile slowed down to more than half an hour per
> line, i hope it gets somewhat faster after the next 70 lines, otherwise i
> will have problems finishing it in time...
If you wish I can probably finish it for you for the _next_ round with my
borland compile on my portable compiling machine: Pentium 75 MHz. ;-)
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
ABX wrote:
>
> If you wish I can probably finish it for you for the _next_ round with my
> borland compile on my portable compiling machine: Pentium 75 MHz. ;-)
I have my doubts. The estimated remaining render time at the current
speed is 7.1 days. That on an 1 GHz Athlon with optimized Linux gcc
compile. I think this could well exceed 2 month on your configuration...
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 13 Aug. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:57:01 +0200, Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
wrote:
> > If you wish I can probably finish it for you for the _next_ round with my
> > borland compile on my portable compiling machine: Pentium 75 MHz. ;-)
>
> I have my doubts. The estimated remaining render time at the current
> speed is 7.1 days. That on an 1 GHz Athlon with optimized Linux gcc
> compile. I think this could well exceed 2 month on your configuration...
What about making screenshots every day, and releasing it as 'speed?' in next
animation round ...
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Timothy R. Cook <tim### [at] scifi-fantasycom> wrote:
> heh usually I just use 2x2 area lights...
That's like not having area lights at all.
I don't understand why people are so afraid of using really dense area
lights.
Granted, they slow down the rendering a bit, but not that much (as long
as you are using adaptive sampling).
The only place where denser area lights slow down the rendering are in
the penumbra (ie. the soft border of the shadows). In all other parts
(ie. fully illuminated or fully shadowed) it doesn't matter how dense the
light source is, as long as the adaptiveness is fixed (that is, a 4x4 area
light and a 100x100 area light will be equally fast).
In a regular scene there's probably about 1%, in the worst case perhaps
even 10% of penumbra in the image area. Big deal?
--
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
As a cautionary tale, try rendering the incdemos on an Amiga 1200 at
20MHz... Not fun. (CPU is a Motorola 68020 at 20MHz, FPU is a Motorola 68882
at 50MHz, 32MB fastRAM, POV-Ray 3.1... Takes about 8 mins for the main
textures incdemo - *without* antialiasing.)
The Amiga is a lovely thing, but raytracing really requires more speed than
that... And anyway, POV-Ray 3.5 isn't availible for it. :-(
Andrew.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> That's like not having area lights at all.
>
> I don't understand why people are so afraid of using really dense area
> lights.
The wise Warp speaks...
(Not that I've ever tried to use area lights to this day...)
Andrew.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Andrew Coppin wrote:
>
> As a cautionary tale, try rendering the incdemos on an Amiga 1200 at
> 20MHz... Not fun. (CPU is a Motorola 68020 at 20MHz, FPU is a Motorola
> 68882 at 50MHz, 32MB fastRAM, POV-Ray 3.1... Takes about 8 mins for
> the main textures incdemo - *without* antialiasing.)
Not that comparing a nine-year-old machine to what we have today is
a fair comparison...
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 04:57:01 -0400, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> ABX wrote:
> I have my doubts. The estimated remaining render time at the current
> speed is 7.1 days. That on an 1 GHz Athlon with optimized Linux gcc
> compile. I think this could well exceed 2 month on your
> configuration...
An optimized POV for Linux? Where did you get that?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tailkinker wrote:
>
> An optimized POV for Linux? Where did you get that?
Made myself, but the current official POV-Ray (3.50c) is fairly well
optimized too.
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 13 Aug. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tailkinker wrote:
>
> An optimized POV for Linux? Where did you get that?
If you don't want to compile it yourself you can get optimized binaries
from http://www.povworld.org/povray/binaries.html
--
objects.povworld.org - The POV-Ray Objects Collection
book.povworld.org - The POV-Ray Book Project
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
