 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
> And I will counter with the argument that it would be silly to modify the
> program to allow backward frame processing and not also add the ability to
> detect what the other instance is working on so that overlapping frames
> are not rendered. I'm not sure how easy it would be to do in a cross
> platform environment.
Hmm... Wouldn't that be quite easy if the computers were connected through
a LAN and shared a directory? Each instance could just write the number of
the frame they are rendering to their own file and then check the other
instance's file if the frame number is same?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
IMHO Tom's point is very valid and logical.
--
#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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Johannes Dahlstrom <sad### [at] tkukoulu fi> wrote:
> Hmm... Wouldn't that be quite easy if the computers were connected through
> a LAN and shared a directory? Each instance could just write the number of
> the frame they are rendering to their own file and then check the other
> instance's file if the frame number is same?
That still leaves the problem that they *might* start rendering the
same frame when they meet. Of course this is extremely improbable (perhaps
one possibility in millions) so in practice it's not a problem.
An easier solution would be to simply check if the image file which the
process is going to render next already exists (file_exists()).
--
#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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Andrew Cocker wrote:
>
> Forgive me if this has been asked before, but is it possible, when
> rendering on 2 machines, to have the second machine start at the last
> frame, and work towards frame 1, so both machines meet each other at
> some point? Using something like +kff400 +sf400 +ef1 (which doesn't
> work)
Use the render queue to have one machine render frames 0-23, 48-71,
96-119, etc; then have the other machine render frames 24-47, 72-95,
120-143, and so on. It will require a separate .ini file for each
set of files.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> I think I will just killfile you. Sorry!
>
No matter who is right and who is wrong in this situation or who
misunderstood something i think this is definitely an inadequate reaction
to Tom's postings. Since Tom is a long time user of POV-Ray you can be
confident that he is defending a valid point - whether he misunderstood
something you said does not change anything about that.
And to sum up my opinion on the matter (and not on the discussion that has
evolved from it) - like Tim and Jaime i see no need for a new feature,
POV-SDL is perfectly capable of handling this without any significant
disadvantage.
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 15 Nov. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3DD61DBE.23FF80B2@gmx.de> , Christoph Hormann
<chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:
>> I think I will just killfile you. Sorry!
>
> No matter who is right and who is wrong in this situation or who
> misunderstood something i think this is definitely an inadequate reaction
> to Tom's postings. Since Tom is a long time user of POV-Ray you can be
> confident that he is defending a valid point - whether he misunderstood
> something you said does not change anything about that.
I killfiled him because he starts length discussions about something
irrelevant and tries to turn it into another you said this I said this and
vice versa game. I have better things to do than waste my time with useless
discussions.
The original poster (Andrew) assumed that he would have to stop POV-Ray
manually, Warp assumed POV-Ray instances would communicate in some way, and
there is absolutely no way to guess what someone else is assuming if it is
either extremely hard to use (Andrew) or requires some fairly complex
network interaction if done optimally (Warp). I am unable to do
mindreading, and neither assumption is logical, feasible or usable.
So asking for more details while assuming a logical, feasible and usable way
to achieve the desired goal makes me misunderstand the problem in Tom's set
of mind, fine, but I don't have to nor do I want to listen his nonsense.
That is why I killfiled him.
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> So asking for more details while assuming a logical, feasible and usable way
> to achieve the desired goal makes me misunderstand the problem in Tom's set
> of mind, fine, but I don't have to nor do I want to listen his nonsense.
> That is why I killfiled him.
You completely refuse to ever listen to anything someone has to say
because you disagree with one position they hold? That's what
killfiling does, at least temporarily. Why don't you just ignore the
thread in question?
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.scifi-fantasy.com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3dd63df4@news.povray.org> , "Timothy R. Cook"
<tim### [at] scifi-fantasycom> wrote:
>> That is why I killfiled him.
>
> You completely refuse to ever listen to anything someone has to say
> because you disagree with one position they hold? That's what
> killfiling does, at least temporarily. Why don't you just ignore the
> thread in question?
Huh??? In what way does
"I killfiled him because he starts length discussions about something
irrelevant and tries to turn it into another you said this I said this and
vice versa game."
possibly imply this? Really, don't you have anthing better to do?
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> Huh??? In what way does
> "I killfiled him because he starts length discussions about something
> irrelevant and tries to turn it into another you said this I said this and
> vice versa game."
> possibly imply this?
Because elsewise you would have killfiled him before this thread,
or not killfiled him but simply ignored this thread.
By killfiling someone, you filter out anything they have to say, yes?
> Really, don't you have anthing better to do?
Sadly, no.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.scifi-fantasy.com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in message
news:3dd631b5$1@news.povray.org...
> The original poster (Andrew) assumed that he would have to stop POV-Ray
> manually, Warp assumed POV-Ray instances would communicate in some way, and
> there is absolutely no way to guess what someone else is assuming if it is
> either extremely hard to use (Andrew) or requires some fairly complex
> network interaction if done optimally (Warp). I am unable to do
> mindreading, and neither assumption is logical, feasible or usable.
Why on earth is my suggestion "extremely hard to use"? IMO it's totally logical, and
useable.
For me (someone who often struggles with the POV SDL), it would be hard (or just a
major
hassle and timewaste) to have to re-write a scene to make it render backwards (I don't
even
know how I would go about doing that).
I admit to not having thought about problems that may arise when running two or more
instances
of POV-Ray on the one machine, and having one or more rendering backwards - with the
Windows
version, couldn't one just disable the feature if Keep Single Instance was unchecked?
I don't
know if something similar is possible on other OS's.
My suggestion / request was for a simple command-line switch that would let POV-Ray
render
from the last frame to the first (when POV-Ray is running on seperate machines!). It
didn't
strike me that this would be a difficult thing to do (but then, what do I know? ;-)).
I never
intended a discussion on networking etc.
I have made (what I consider to be very useful) suggestions in the past, but which
have not
been implemented (I won't say 'ignored', 'cause I don't know) such as having Pause
Render
available by right-clicking on the tray icon. I always assume that there are good
reasons why
these things aren't implemented, and never take it personally. This is just another of
those
things, and is not a problem.
All the best,
Andy Cocker
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
