Yes, you're right. I will prepare a compressed ZIP or RAR file. The
scene consists of several files (.pov, .inc, .jpg, .png).

Post a reply to this message

Okay, if you want to tell me your speed on my scene, here is the
compressed RAR archive that contains all files:
"http://www.SvenLittkowski.name/d/SL - Seneca II.rar"
Because of the high resolution textures, it is 101 MB big.

Included my QUICKRES.ini. Use the 8000x4500 AA0.3 16:9 resolution, and
use -q12 +sc0.248406 +sr0.444099 +ec0.441055 +er0.635475 as command line
parameters. For the test render to measure the speed of my scene on
other computers, there is no need to change anything inside the .pov file.

Thanks for your assistance. :-)

Post a reply to this message

> Okay, if you want to tell me your speed on my scene, here is the
> compressed RAR archive that contains all files:
> "http://www.SvenLittkowski.name/d/SL - Seneca II.rar"
> Because of the high resolution textures, it is 101 MB big.

Spaces didn't work in the address, I had to manually replace them.

> Included my QUICKRES.ini. Use the 8000x4500 AA0.3 16:9 resolution, and
> use -q12 +sc0.248406 +sr0.444099 +ec0.441055 +er0.635475 as command line
> parameters. For the test render to measure the speed of my scene on
> other computers, there is no need to change anything inside the .pov file.

kolors.inc I had to rename to colors.inc on my system :-)

then:

Possible Parse Error: Cannot find file 'Seneca II - Hull Bump NoGates 
Windows.png', even after trying to
append file type extension.
Possible Parse Error: Cannot find image file.
Fatal error in parser: Cannot open file.
Render failed

Post a reply to this message

No chance for a test as you suggested.
Even with very simple radiosity settings the render is extremely slow.

The culprit should be found in the MidshipHull inc file, since everything
renders pretty fast, if this part is excluded (nice model, by the way!).

Norbert

Post a reply to this message

Yes, it seems, yesterday night I forgot to include some files. I
uploaded the new, corrected and complete version:
"http://www.SvenLittkowski.name/d/SL-SenecaII.rar"

How many PPM do you get in average?
How long does that test scene takes with "+q12 +sc0.248406 +sr0.444099
+ec0.441055 +er0.635475"?

Post a reply to this message

On 27-1-2016 14:26, scott wrote:
>> Okay, if you want to tell me your speed on my scene, here is the
>> compressed RAR archive that contains all files:
>> "http://www.SvenLittkowski.name/d/SL - Seneca II.rar"
>> Because of the high resolution textures, it is 101 MB big.
>
> Spaces didn't work in the address, I had to manually replace them.
>
>> Included my QUICKRES.ini. Use the 8000x4500 AA0.3 16:9 resolution, and
>> use -q12 +sc0.248406 +sr0.444099 +ec0.441055 +er0.635475 as command line
>> parameters. For the test render to measure the speed of my scene on
>> other computers, there is no need to change anything inside the .pov
>> file.
>
> kolors.inc I had to rename to colors.inc on my system :-)

Watch out! Kolors.inc (should be kolors.inc) is/was a file generated by 
Uncle Ken (Tyler) and is different from colors.inc!


-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Sven Littkowski <jam### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> Yes, it seems, yesterday night I forgot to include some files. I
> uploaded the new, corrected and complete version:
> "http://www.SvenLittkowski.name/d/SL-SenecaII.rar"
>
> How many PPM do you get in average?
> How long does that test scene takes with "+q12 +sc0.248406 +sr0.444099
> +ec0.441055 +er0.635475"?

After replacing the still missing file "Warp - 001.png" I started an overnight
test render with your settings.

It's a pity to not have the time to complete the render - after 9:04:55 I
stopped it.

224896 pixels were rendered at that time (pretracing 0:50:22; 6243 MB RAM at
stopping).

This means 413 ppm including pretracing and 455 ppm excluding pretracing.

Hope it helped a bit.


Norbert

Post a reply to this message

"Norbert Kern" <nor### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:

> After replacing the still missing file "Warp - 001.png" I started an overnight
> test render with your settings.
>
> It's a pity to not have the time to complete the render - after 9:04:55 I
> stopped it.
>
> 224896 pixels were rendered at that time (pretracing 0:50:22; 6243 MB RAM at
> stopping).
>
> This means 413 ppm including pretracing and 455 ppm excluding pretracing.
>
> Hope it helped a bit.


Forgot some details - Intel i7-5960X 3.0 GHz, 16 threads, 32 GB RAM


Norbert

Post a reply to this message

Thanks a lot! :-)
How many percent did you complete, do you remember?

Pretracing just 50 minutes? On my system, it took a whole day and the
whole night or so.

But it shows me also, what I needed to know: that other computer specs
can lead not just to small time benefits in rendering, but even to quite
remarkable time benefits.

I needed to know this, because I am considering more and more, because
of the slowness of my system, to use render farms for future test and
full renders. The bad thing is, that will take money. I live in the
so-called "Third World", and we people here have to work much longer to
earn our equivalent of one US Dollar than the average person in the USA
or in Western Europe. Means, for me this is a really big decision. Thus
my call for test renders.

If the results wouldn't be so dramatically different to my own time
consumption, I would have waited for more test renders of other persons.
But seeing such a big difference, I understand that only other computers
can deliver me my renders in an acceptable time.

Example: my own test render (same conditions as yours) lasts now already
4 days and 15 hours (right now at 19 pixels/minute), and still, I have
achieved only 9% of the entire render - that is, to remember, only a
PARTIAL rendering of the even much larger scene.

Post a reply to this message

Sven Littkowski <jam### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> Thanks a lot! :-)
> How many percent did you complete, do you remember?

16 % completed

> Example: my own test render (same conditions as yours) lasts now already
> 4 days and 15 hours (right now at 19 pixels/minute), and still, I have
> achieved only 9% of the entire render - that is, to remember, only a
> PARTIAL rendering of the even much larger scene.

Hmmm, how long did it take to render your nice predecessor version
(http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.animations/message/%3C4470f05b%40news.povray.org%3E/#%3C4470f05b%40news.povray.
org%3E)?



Norbert

Post a reply to this message