 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Currently I have a render going for over 1 day, only 30% done and it looks
like this might take a very long time.
Is there anything I have done just plain incorrectly to cause this texture
to be so slow, or is it simply the very nature of this texture? Any
thoughts would be appreciated.
I am applying it to that snownut test object as a whole.
This is the slope texture I use for the high quality snow/ice. Here is the
full usage:
slopeSnowTex(-1,0.9)
texture {
SnowTex0
}
interior {
fade_distance 2
fade_power 3
ior 1.45
caustics 1.0
}
// slopeSnowTex.inc
//---------------------------------------//
// Snow texture by [GDS|Entropy] |
// Ian McDonald |
//---------------------------------------//
#macro slopeSnowTex(_C_,filterVal)
#declare Snow =
texture {
pigment {
color rgb <0.96,0.97,0.99>*1.1
}
normal {
wrinkles 0.4
ramp_wave
turbulence 0.3
scale 0.039
}
finish {
ambient 0.35
diffuse 0.425
specular 0.125
roughness 0.1
}
}
#declare Snow2 =
texture {
pigment {
color rgb <0.98,0.97,0.96>
}
normal {
wrinkles 0.3
ramp_wave
turbulence 0.25
scale 0.036
}
finish {
ambient 0.325
diffuse 0.4
specular 0.15
roughness 0.075
}
}
#declare Ice =
texture {
pigment {
bozo
octaves 1
frequency 4
triangle_wave
color_map {
[0.00 rgbf <0.98,0.97,0.96,filterVal>]
[0.03 rgbf <0.91,0.97,0.93,filterVal>]
[0.40 rgbf <0.91,0.97,0.93,filterVal>]
[0.40 rgbf <0.91,0.94,0.94,filterVal>]
[0.42 rgbf <0.91,0.97,0.93,filterVal>]
[1.00 rgbf <0.91,0.97,0.93,filterVal>]
}
}
finish {
ambient 0
diffuse 1
brilliance 0.005
specular 0.5
roughness 0.001
reflection 0.125
}
normal {
wrinkles 0.1
scale 0.00001
}
}
#declare Ice2 =
texture {
pigment {
bozo
octaves 1
frequency 4
triangle_wave
color_map {
[0.00 rgbt <0.98,0.97,0.96,filterVal+0.1>]
[0.03 rgbt <0.91,0.97,0.93,filterVal+0.1>]
[0.40 rgbt <0.91,0.97,0.93,filterVal+0.1>]
[0.40 rgbt <0.91,0.94,0.94,filterVal+0.1>]
[0.42 rgbt <0.91,0.97,0.93,filterVal+0.1>]
[1.00 rgbt <0.91,0.97,0.93,filterVal+0.1>]
}
}
finish {
ambient 0
diffuse 1
brilliance 0.05
specular 0.5
roughness 0.001
reflection 0.125
}
normal {
wrinkles 0.1
scale 0.00001
}
}
#declare SnowTex0 =
texture {
slope -y
texture_map {
[0.1 Snow]
[0.2-(0.05*_C_) Snow2]
[0.3-(0.01*_C_) Ice]
[0.4-(0.133*_C_) Ice2]
[0.5-(0.133*_C_) Ice2]
}
rotate -5*z
}
#end
Ian McDonald
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I heard latest beta has texture baking or something like that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Christian Froeschlin
Subject: Re: Very slow texture: any ideas on speeding it up?
Date: 16 Dec 2010 15:42:26
Message: <4d0a79b2$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
[GDS|Entropy] wrote:
> Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Well it certainly is a complex texture, but I'd
tend to blame it on the blurred reflection
> normal {
> wrinkles 0.1
> scale 0.00001
> }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ok, I'll give that a shot.
Thank you,
Ian
On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 15:42:24 -0500, Christian Froeschlin <chr### [at] chrfr de>
wrote:
> [GDS|Entropy] wrote:
>
>> Any thoughts would be appreciated.
>
> Well it certainly is a complex texture, but I'd
> tend to blame it on the blurred reflection
>
>> normal {
>> wrinkles 0.1
>> scale 0.00001
>> }
>
>
>
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Well it certainly is a complex texture, but I'd
> tend to blame it on the blurred reflection
>
>> normal {
>> wrinkles 0.1
>> scale 0.00001
>> }
What are your anti-aliasing settings? With a texture like this, you'll
get a lot of oversampling, especially if you're using AA method 2. I
would increase the scale of that normal as much as possible. (Also, at a
scale that small, you probably don't need as much detail as the wrinkles
pattern provides.)
- Slime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, I have tried disabling all of the normals, as well as turning off
radiosity and anti-aliasing...but to no avail, unfortunately. :(
I guess it is just perhaps all of the transmits and then the shadows cast
by the non transmitting texture portions. I can't think of anything else.
Though it still seems that this texture should not take so god-awfully
long to render. If I can ever get povray to compile with vs2010 ultimate I
will be sure to step through the code and run all kinds of metrics and
performance evaluations as well. Though that is, honestly, a low priority.
I need to finish the other things that I have started first.
I think that my situation and options are as outlined below:
1) I cannot fix the texture render time directly without ruining the
texture or patching pov
2) I can either
2a) tessellate the surface and render the mesh
2b) implement a mesh based version of metaballs (I have some c# code
which creates mesh metaballs [though..again without patching pov to get
some useful collection types..])
That seems to be it. It is unknown which option would result in lower
total render time, though I would expect parse time to be lower for option
2b.
You know..it might actually be worth coming up with a patch to pov which
would give the user something close to standard collection types such as
follows:
1) List<T>
2) Dictionary<T,T>
3) ArrayList<T>
4) Tree<T>
5) Ability to eval and run the same language pov-ray was written in, so
you could mix c++ and SDL (such as overriding or overloading methods used
in the renderer)
6) MathML eval
But those are tasks for a different day...(perhaps even epoch)
Ian
On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 22:15:26 -0500, Slime <pov### [at] slimelandcom> wrote:
> > Well it certainly is a complex texture, but I'd
> > tend to blame it on the blurred reflection
> >
> >> normal {
> >> wrinkles 0.1
> >> scale 0.00001
> >> }
>
> What are your anti-aliasing settings? With a texture like this, you'll
> get a lot of oversampling, especially if you're using AA method 2. I
> would increase the scale of that normal as much as possible. (Also, at a
> scale that small, you probably don't need as much detail as the wrinkles
> pattern provides.)
>
> - Slime
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Currently I have a render going for over 1 day, only 30% done and it
> looks like this might take a very long time.
> Is there anything I have done just plain incorrectly to cause this
> texture to be so slow, or is it simply the very nature of this texture?
> Any thoughts would be appreciated.
>
> I am applying it to that snownut test object as a whole.
>
> This is the slope texture I use for the high quality snow/ice. Here is
> the full usage:
>
> slopeSnowTex(-1,0.9)
>
> texture {
> SnowTex0
> }
> interior {
> fade_distance 2
> fade_power 3
> ior 1.45
> caustics 1.0
> }
>
Maybe not related, but an interior with fade_power 3?
fade_power 2 is realistic for light fading from a light_source through a
volume.
Through some material, you should use fade_power 1 or fade_power 1001 to
use exponential fading.
fade_power is unrealistic in any situation, unless you appen to live in
a 4D+time world.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hmm....interesting. Related or not, I will be adjusting that value. I do
want realistic ice, as much as possible. Thanks for the tip!
Ian
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 22:59:22 -0500, Alain <aze### [at] qwertyorg> wrote:
>> Currently I have a render going for over 1 day, only 30% done and it
>> looks like this might take a very long time.
>> Is there anything I have done just plain incorrectly to cause this
>> texture to be so slow, or is it simply the very nature of this textur
e?
>> Any thoughts would be appreciated.
>>
>> I am applying it to that snownut test object as a whole.
>>
>> This is the slope texture I use for the high quality snow/ice. Here i
s
>> the full usage:
>>
>> slopeSnowTex(-1,0.9)
>>
>> texture {
>> SnowTex0
>> }
>> interior {
>> fade_distance 2
>> fade_power 3
>> ior 1.45
>> caustics 1.0
>> }
>>
> Maybe not related, but an interior with fade_power 3?
> fade_power 2 is realistic for light fading from a light_source through
a
> volume.
> Through some material, you should use fade_power 1 or fade_power 1001
to
> use exponential fading.
> fade_power is unrealistic in any situation, unless you appen to live i
n
> a 4D+time world.
>
>
>
> Alain
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
