 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Timwi <pov### [at] timwi de> wrote:
> It would be a nice compromise if that were possible, however POV-ray
> still pops up and steals focus if you do that. (Plus POV-ray makes this
> so that you can start the next render.
The batch file I posted does serial rendering unattended.
> simultaneous renderings in a single instance.
It does, however, support multiple instances. (In the Options menu, uncheck
Keep Single Instance.) Whether it /loads/ multiple instances I cannot answer,
since my technical knowledge of Windows stalled in 1995. With POV-Ray 3.7's SMP
support, though, it shouldn't matter whether your renders are serial or
parallel.
> the options like image size on the command-line. You have to set up the
> GUI the right way.)
You most certainly can do that on the command line. Have you tried the +W and
+H options?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Timwi <pov### [at] timwide> wrote:
> On 16/03/2013 18:27, clipka wrote:
> >
> > As for "massively" inconveniencing "all" Windows users: Most Windows
> > users have been happy to run their renders from within the GUI, and
> > Windows never really made batch processing easy anyway, so people
> > requiring batch processing would typically turn towards Linux in the
> > first place.
>
> Only opinionated Linux users can seriously think that :(
Call me opinionated, then.
> There is nothing about Windows that makes command-line stuff like batch
> processing *so* hard that it would be worth it to install, run and learn
> Linux.
I used to hate Unix. Then I got a job working with IBM's AIX operating system,
and it grew on me. Working with a Windows PC, I found myself downloading Gnu
tools to do the things I took for granted with AIX (and still not able to use
those tools as effectively as under a Unix-like system). Then when my XP system
crashed, I upgraded to the super-duper fantabulous Windows 7, which I'm sure has
taken months off my life expectancy. With Micro$haft's concept of
"user-friendly" driving me batty, and me downloading Gnu tools anyway, I figured
I might as well try Linux.
I'm much happier with Linux. But I believe in freedom of religion, and one has
the right to choose Windows.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/03/2013 4:44 PM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> It does, however, support multiple instances. (In the Options menu, uncheck
> Keep Single Instance.)
By the bye, with Keep Single Instance, checked. You can run an instance
of the 64 bit and an instance of the 32 bit RC7 versions at the same time.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/03/2013 17:44, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> Timwi <pov### [at] timwide> wrote:
>> It would be a nice compromise if that were possible, however POV-ray
>> still pops up and steals focus if you do that. (Plus POV-ray makes this
>> so that you can start the next render.
>
> The batch file I posted does serial rendering unattended.
So does mine. Yours still pops up a needless GUI for every new render.
> It does, however, support multiple instances.
I am well aware of that.
>> the options like image size on the command-line. You have to set up the
>> GUI the right way.)
>
> You most certainly can do that on the command line.
Otherwise, how did you think I am rendering right now?
Timwi
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Timwi <pov### [at] timwide> wrote:
> As far as I can tell, the Windows version of POV-ray comes only with a GUI.
>
> What do I need to do to get a command-line-compatible renderer?
there is a way to get around this:
What you do is turn your sequential files that you would normally render with a
..bat file into .inc files then you put them into an array in a new file, like so
--
#declare render_queue =
array [num] {
"file1.inc",
"file2,inc",
....
"file(num-1).inc"
}
include render_queue[frame_number]
I haven't tested it, but I think it should work; although it might pose problems
for batch rendering animations...
If each file you were rendering had it's own .ini file, it might work.
Regards,
A.D.B.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 20.03.2013 17:03, schrieb Timwi:
> On 16/03/2013 18:27, clipka wrote:
>>
>> As for "massively" inconveniencing "all" Windows users: Most Windows
>> users have been happy to run their renders from within the GUI, and
>> Windows never really made batch processing easy anyway, so people
>> requiring batch processing would typically turn towards Linux in the
>> first place.
>
> Only opinionated Linux users can seriously think that :(
That statement of yours can easily be disproven: I'm a mouse-pushing
Microsoft addict, who even appreciates some of their products, and I
personally think that for desktop systems GNU/Linux is still no serious
alternative to Windows; and I'm a layman when it comes to administering
a Linux system (even though I'm a professional software developer), to
the point that I detest administering Linux systems. But when there's
serious batch processing to do, I'd take Linux any time, and even go
through the hassle of setting up a system myself.
So there exists at least one person who seriously thinks what I wrote,
and isn't an opinionated Linux user.
> There is nothing about Windows that makes command-line stuff like batch
> processing *so* hard that it would be worth it to install, run and learn
> Linux.
Believe me, there is.
> this.
For rendering a thousand images, the typical approach would be to set
this thing up as an animation job.
I'm not saying that users such as you don't exist. But they're far from
"all" Windows users, and they're not "massively" inconvenienced.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 20.03.2013 17:10, schrieb Timwi:
> It would be a nice compromise if that were possible, however POV-ray
> still pops up and steals focus if you do that. (Plus POV-ray makes this
> the options like image size on the command-line. You have to set up the
> GUI the right way.)
Did you ever try the File Queue feature?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 20.03.2013 17:44, schrieb Cousin Ricky:
>> simultaneous renderings in a single instance.
>
> It does, however, support multiple instances. (In the Options menu, uncheck
> Keep Single Instance.) Whether it /loads/ multiple instances I cannot answer,
> since my technical knowledge of Windows stalled in 1995. With POV-Ray 3.7's SMP
> support, though, it shouldn't matter whether your renders are serial or
> parallel.
Well, it does: Throwing all the computing power at a single render at a
time is far more memory-efficient than splitting up the power between
multiple renders. It's probably also faster, as you don't end up with
multiple instances fighting for space in the processor caches.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/25/2013 5:48 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 20.03.2013 17:03, schrieb Timwi:
>> On 16/03/2013 18:27, clipka wrote:
>>>
>>> As for "massively" inconveniencing "all" Windows users: Most Windows
>>> users have been happy to run their renders from within the GUI, and
>>> Windows never really made batch processing easy anyway, so people
>>> requiring batch processing would typically turn towards Linux in the
>>> first place.
>>
>> Only opinionated Linux users can seriously think that :(
>
> That statement of yours can easily be disproven: I'm a mouse-pushing
> Microsoft addict, who even appreciates some of their products, and I
> personally think that for desktop systems GNU/Linux is still no serious
> alternative to Windows; and I'm a layman when it comes to administering
> a Linux system (even though I'm a professional software developer), to
> the point that I detest administering Linux systems. But when there's
> serious batch processing to do, I'd take Linux any time, and even go
> through the hassle of setting up a system myself.
>
> So there exists at least one person who seriously thinks what I wrote,
> and isn't an opinionated Linux user.
>
>> There is nothing about Windows that makes command-line stuff like batch
>> processing *so* hard that it would be worth it to install, run and learn
>> Linux.
>
Well, other than just about everything complex you need to do with
windows batch needing either a) windows scripting, and/or b) small
utility commands, which are just plain missing (and, frankly, when
something as ancient as the old 4DOS command.com replacement would be a
massive improvement to cmd.com, by itself, this is saying a lot. lol)
Batch hasn't changed since DOS 1.0, or something, for the most part, but
we don't even have the command set that came "with" DOS3.3, never mind
6.0, or any of the third party tools that extended it. Its purely pathetic.
The rest of windows.. has some things that are just bad, because they
are not configurable, or won't let you do specific things, or make
"guesses" about what you intend, that are just wrong. On the other hand,
a lot of stuff does work, a lot better, like auto-mounting.
However, I would lay odds that if I plugged my HP 4500 printer into
Linux, I could use it to scan documents. I have spent two days doing
everything short of uninstalling my virus/firewall software, removing
all the drivers, and then reinstalling the printer drivers, trying to
get it to do jack all other than freeze up, trying to talk to the
scanner, without even showing a dialog. Its probably AVG causing the
problem, but.. I am reluctant to do an uninstall/reinstall to fix it,
and, at this point, since I don't scan often anyway, I am not sure its
worth the effort.
So..
GUI - Linux needs work.
Command prompt/batch - For anything semi-complicated, either Linux, or
find an old copy of DOS 6.0, or the like, and install all the crap they
decided we don't need any more.
Hardware compatibility - Windows will a) install wrong drivers, if it
can't find the right ones, b) won't always install them right, c) you
get bloody insane things, like your virus scanner actually interfering
with USB ports. o.O But, when it works, detection is flawless, mounting
is immediate, and you don't need to do any complex shit to make it work.
Linux - if it can't figure out what something is, it won't work
"period". If its mountable, you might have to monkey with some files, to
automount it (this is getting better though), but, when it does know how
to talk to the hardware, its **completely** flawless, as near as I can
see, with no odd quirks, bugs, strange conflicts, or any of the, "Gosh!
I don't know what this thing is, so lets just mark it as "unknown" and
not even look for a driver, since, after all, Microsoft doesn't have an
exhaustive list of drivers you can download, or even an exhaustive list
of working generic drivers, which actually can tell how to use the
hardware to full advantage.
So, yeah.. If you like pretty, and easy, Linux still has a ways to go,
in most cases. If you want things to bloody work, out of the box,
without having to hunt to driver disks, monkey with anti-virus bugs, and
otherwise chase down solutions, which may not even exist, when things
*do* go wrong.. good luck with Microsoft. lol
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25/03/2013 13:51, clipka wrote:
>
> Did you ever try the File Queue feature?
Ahaaa! Why did no-one mention this? :) In future if I need to render
However, those few weeks ago when I posted this, I wrote code to split
the workload across 4 computers. I had each computer report each
limited in this scenario.
I looked at
http://wiki.povray.org/content/Documentation:Windows_Section_3 (which,
File Queue feature from the command line. Therefore, I cannot automate
File Queue renders. :(
Timwi
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
