 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > Do you, by any chance, know exactly how deep into objects POV-Ray can
trace
> > without reaching the nested-max?
>
> 100. If you hit that limit, change your scene because if you hit it, you
> can be certain there is something very inefficient in your scene.
Yeah, I'd expect that to be inefficient for standard scenes. But when I use
a particle system with hundreds of particles, such things can easily happen.
But I guess it's not that easy to raise that limit without requiring much
more memory.
Thanks for responses, Slime and Thorsten!
Regards,
Tim
--
"Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Nikias <JUSTTHELOWERCASE:timISNOTnikias(at)gmx.netWARE> wrote:
> Yeah, I'd expect that to be inefficient for standard scenes. But when I use
> a particle system with hundreds of particles, such things can easily happen.
You might want to rework your particle system so that if there is more
than 100 particles one inside another, not all of them are actually
instantiated (it wouldn't make any difference in the image anyways).
--
plane{-x+y,-1pigment{bozo color_map{[0rgb x][1rgb x+y]}turbulence 1}}
sphere{0,2pigment{rgbt 1}interior{media{emission 1density{spherical
density_map{[0rgb 0][.5rgb<1,.5>][1rgb 1]}turbulence.9}}}scale
<1,1,3>hollow}text{ttf"timrom""Warp".1,0translate<-1,-.1,2>}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> You might want to rework your particle system so that if there is more
> than 100 particles one inside another, not all of them are actually
> instantiated (it wouldn't make any difference in the image anyways).
Not really possible. Particles can be animated using Macros, additionally,
several particle systems might run at a given time. Tracking all their sizes
and positions doesn't seem feasible. And the workaround should be tailored
to the actual scene, instead of just removing particles on a general basis.
In my case, I just used fewer particles and made them less transparent,
works fine for this scene.
That aside, how do discs add up to the nesting? They've only got one
surface.
--
"Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Nikias <JUSTTHELOWERCASE:timISNOTnikias(at)gmx.netWARE> wrote:
> That aside, how do discs add up to the nesting? They've only got one
> surface.
Most primitives have only one surface, yet that doesn't stop them from
having an inside, even when this surface is open.
Just test discs in CSG with other objects to see their inside.
--
plane{-x+y,-1pigment{bozo color_map{[0rgb x][1rgb x+y]}turbulence 1}}
sphere{0,2pigment{rgbt 1}interior{media{emission 1density{spherical
density_map{[0rgb 0][.5rgb<1,.5>][1rgb 1]}turbulence.9}}}scale
<1,1,3>hollow}text{ttf"timrom""Warp".1,0translate<-1,-.1,2>}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Most primitives have only one surface, yet that doesn't stop them from
> having an inside, even when this surface is open.
Yeah, I knew that. Discs are just planes with a limited visibily radius
(idiot speaking here, but that's kinda the code behind a disc, right?).
Which object wouldn't have an inside, so that nesting doesn't occur? Do
triangles have insides? Something that could replace the disc in the
particle system but doesn't add to nesting?
--
"Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Nikias <JUSTTHELOWERCASE:timISNOTnikias(at)gmx.netWARE> wrote:
> Which object wouldn't have an inside, so that nesting doesn't occur? Do
> triangles have insides? Something that could replace the disc in the
> particle system but doesn't add to nesting?
AFAIK triangles do not have an inside (which is why meshes do not work
in CSG unless a very specialized insideness test (turned on with the
'inside_vector' keyword) is used). It may well be a good idea to use
meshes instead of discs or other solid objects for a particle system.
If you are unsure, test triangles in CSG to see if you can find their
"inside", as with the disc.
--
plane{-x+y,-1pigment{bozo color_map{[0rgb x][1rgb x+y]}turbulence 1}}
sphere{0,2pigment{rgbt 1}interior{media{emission 1density{spherical
density_map{[0rgb 0][.5rgb<1,.5>][1rgb 1]}turbulence.9}}}scale
<1,1,3>hollow}text{ttf"timrom""Warp".1,0translate<-1,-.1,2>}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> If you are unsure, test triangles in CSG to see if you can find their
> "inside", as with the disc.
I did a quick scene which just placed hundreds of objects behind each other.
It seems like there is no "true" 2D-Object, even triangles add up to
nesting. So I guess the only working method would be to take a sphere,
squish it real hard to make it near disc-like, and place those as particles.
POV-Ray would know when it enters and exits a sphere and for the general
usage, it would hardly be possible to have enough of such thin particles to
nest inside each other to reach the limit.
Anyways, thanks for the insight and help, much appreciated!
--
"Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <414ec94e@news.povray.org> , "Tim Nikias"
<JUSTTHELOWERCASE:timISNOTnikias(at)gmx.netWARE> wrote:
> I did a quick scene which just placed hundreds of objects behind each other.
> It seems like there is no "true" 2D-Object, even triangles add up to
> nesting.
You misunderstand the message (which could be clearer). The limit surfaces
if a ray intersects more than 100 objects.
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trf de
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> You misunderstand the message (which could be clearer). The limit
surfaces
> if a ray intersects more than 100 objects.
Ah, okay. Hm. Then there isn't much of a workaround aside of using less
objects, eh? Doesn't happen that often.
Still, how does max_trave_level make sense then? I mean, if the upper limit
for that is 256, and I'd have 100 objects, that'd be only 200 surfaces. Of
course, max_trave_level also takes care of reflections and such. But
wouldn't it be better if the objects would be limited to a number where
max_trave_level won't allow to go anyway? E.g. 129 objects or such
(129*2=258, max_trave_level would limit it anyway). That way, "too many
nested..." wouldn't pop up, or am I mistaken? Unless of course the objects
have more than one surface when I pass through them. And, ah, cause most
objects won't just have two surfaces, there's no point in adjusting the
object-limit to the max_trace_level?
Regards,
Tim
--
"Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <414da1ca@news.povray.org>, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>
wrote:
> AFAIK triangles do not have an inside (which is why meshes do not work
> in CSG unless a very specialized insideness test (turned on with the
> 'inside_vector' keyword) is used). It may well be a good idea to use
> meshes instead of discs or other solid objects for a particle system.
They do not have an inside. They do have insideness, however. An
intersection with another object would give nothing, but a ray enters a
transparent triangle when it hits it, and exits if it hits it again
(after a reflection, for example). Anything seen through a triangle is
"inside" it as far as volumetric calculations are concerned.
Obviously, this isn't too useful for triangles...perhaps an additional
test can be performed to ignore the "volume" of patch objects.
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: <chr### [at] tagpovrayorg>
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
