 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I am currently rendering an image, that by my calculations, will take just over
ten days to finish.
I am currently on Day 2.
Is this some kind of record?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Aarqon" <aar### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> I am currently rendering an image, that by my calculations, will take just over
> ten days to finish.
> I am currently on Day 2.
> Is this some kind of record?
I don't think so.
Well, it may be, if you're rendering on a Windows machine and manage to get the
render to actually finish :P
(Been there, done that; after about 2 days into an estimated 10-day render I
returned home from office to find that the machine had crashed - and I couldn't
get it to pick up again on that render...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Aarqon" <aar### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I am currently rendering an image, that by my calculations, will take just over
> ten days to finish.
> I am currently on Day 2.
> Is this some kind of record?
Nope.
http://oyonale.com/image.php?code=177&mode=info§ion=1997&lang=en
Anyone know of longer?
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Aarqon nous illumina en ce 2009-04-08 08:37 -->
> I am currently rendering an image, that by my calculations, will take just over
> ten days to finish.
> I am currently on Day 2.
> Is this some kind of record?
>
>
I had a render going for about 20 days, on a win2000 machine. After the render
finished, I realised that it could have been much faster if I had changed a few
media settings from intervals 50 samples 10 to only samples 100...
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Don't cry because it is over, smile because it happened.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Aarqon" <aar### [at] gmailcom> schreef in bericht
news:web.49dc9a7946923cffcaccd5230@news.povray.org...
>I am currently rendering an image, that by my calculations, will take just
>over
> ten days to finish.
> I am currently on Day 2.
> Is this some kind of record?
>
Don't know really. On a Windows machine (like mine) I usually interrupt the
render regularly, and restart it the next day with +C. Drawback is that
render speed is lowered, but I am sure the machine is not going to crash (or
so I hope). This way I have had renders of a week or more (subjectively).
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
> > Is this some kind of record?
> >
> Don't know really. On a Windows machine (like mine) I usually interrupt the
> render regularly, and restart it the next day with +C. Drawback is that
> render speed is lowered, but I am sure the machine is not going to crash (or
> so I hope). This way I have had renders of a week or more (subjectively).
I have a bare linux box that I use for long-term rendering. I've left this
running for a couple of weeks at least. Most of my 'final' renders don't
usually take longer than a couple of days though, since I take quite a lot of
time to optimise, and rarely use refraction-heavy scenes. (Although I've not
rendered anything without radiosity for a long time :) )
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> I don't think so.
>
> Well, it may be, if you're rendering on a Windows machine and manage to get the
> render to actually finish :P
>
> (Been there, done that; after about 2 days into an estimated 10-day render I
> returned home from office to find that the machine had crashed - and I couldn't
> get it to pick up again on that render...)
Well, it's been 3 days already and no signs of crashing (but when are there,
really?).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
> Don't know really. On a Windows machine (like mine) I usually interrupt the
> render regularly, and restart it the next day with +C. Drawback is that
> render speed is lowered, but I am sure the machine is not going to crash (or
> so I hope). This way I have had renders of a week or more (subjectively).
>
> Thomas
Well, mine is currently using 95% of my CPU 24/7 (I haven't turned it off).
Don't know if that makes much of a difference.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Aarqon wrote:
> I am currently rendering an image, that by my calculations, will take just over
> ten days to finish.
> I am currently on Day 2.
> Is this some kind of record?
>
Not even close. My personal max was three months (lots of media +
radiosity + a long time ago)...
Jerome
- --
mailto:jeb### [at] freefr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeb### [at] jabberfr
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkneLsoACgkQd0kWM4JG3k/ZiwCguDBbBYZyNYrE3A5c2fEy98s7
H/8AoKcNzqM+h/1O9gSCfDJiTYV2kHmb
=lOSh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 08:37:13 -0400, Aarqon wrote:
> I am currently rendering an image, that by my calculations, will take
> just over ten days to finish.
> I am currently on Day 2.
> Is this some kind of record?
I ran a test render of a posted image called "blueblob" a couple years
ago; set the quality and AA at max and just let it run on a dual-
processor multi-core system. I think it ran for 4 months.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
