 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 05.01.2016 um 23:06 schrieb Theogott:
> Whats at the back-end (Meshes or primitives) does not really interest the end
> user so much.
... until it causes artifacts.
> At the end the end user doesn't know if there are Meshes at the beack-end or
> primitives. And normally i would say that all Primitives can be converted
> somehow to Meshes, at least i think they do it in Cinema 4D this way.
We had /this/ topic just a couple of days ago: Converting the entire set
of primitives supported by POV-Ray to meshes isn't trivial either. In
some cases because it is simply difficult to convert the shape to a mesh
in the first place; this is the case for isosurfaces, fractals, and
possibly a few others. In other cases it is a matter of precision: How
much faceting is acceptable in the geometry of a sphere, for example?
There is no clear answer to that -- it depends on what role and size it
has in the render, and/or what CSG operations it participates in.
And then there is the shading that would need to be ported to whatever
render engine would be used instead, from the reflection model to the
legion of patterns supported by POV-Ray.
And once again the whole project would first need a lot of work towards
more modularization of the code. Which, as I may re-iterate, is
currently being worked on.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
What is the benefit of having GPU rendering rather than just going to
the store and buying yourself a faster processor? Are GPUs inherently
better at this stuff than CPUs?
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/6/2016 5:03 AM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> What is the benefit of having GPU rendering rather than just going to
> the store and buying yourself a faster processor? Are GPUs inherently
> better at this stuff than CPUs?
>
I think the benifit is that the GPU is sitting idle, doing nothing when
it could be working.
I think it just rankles that all that processing power is going to waste.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 06.01.2016 um 06:03 schrieb Mike Horvath:
> What is the benefit of having GPU rendering rather than just going to
> the store and buying yourself a faster processor? Are GPUs inherently
> better at this stuff than CPUs?
The benefit is that GPUs can give you far more floating point operations
per buck and second than CPUs.
The drawback is, that's only true as long as you're performing the same
sequence of operations on a vast number of data points in parallel. As
soon as any data points need special treatment, the other data points'
computations need to be stalled. So programs need to be written in a
matter that minimizes such special handling.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> What is the benefit of having GPU rendering rather than just going to
> the store and buying yourself a faster processor? Are GPUs inherently
> better at this stuff than CPUs?
For very simple algorithms that run a huge number of times on slighty
different input parameters, a GPU can often be several orders of
magnitude faster than a CPU. For example I ported a very simple
path-tracer from CPU to GPU, it ended up about 1000x faster as it is
perfectly suited to running on a GPU. There's a short video of it in
action here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXQa5kHspFk
The issue is with more complex real-world applications, they need to be
broken down into "bitesize" chunks that a GPU can run efficiently, and
between each "chunk" being run on the GPU, some amount of processing is
likely required to prepare. Often not easy from a conceptual point of
view, and there is no guarantee that the resulting application will be
much faster than the original CPU-only version.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/4/2016 2:59 PM, Theogott wrote:
> All the needed informations are out there reday to be implemented by people who
> know where they want to go (and have enough time and resources :-).
Great, so you shouldn't have a problem writing it!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/5/2016 3:06 PM, Theogott wrote:
> Yes, i just use the chance to spread a little bit of the newest trends.
Le sigh... You've kind of missed the boat. This feature has been
requested - repeatedly - for, what, ten years now? There are real
challenges facing the POV team before they make this happen.
Hell, it's hard enough for me just to get the thing to compile on
Windows, as many of the libraries are geared towards Linux (Thanks,
Pixar!). Rewriting the whole thing for a completely different
architecture can probably wait a bit longer.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Benjamin Chambers <ben### [at] outlook com> wrote:
> Hell, it's hard enough for me just to get the thing to compile on
> Windows, as many of the libraries are geared towards Linux (Thanks,
> Pixar!).
If you experience any problems building POV-Ray on Windows, please let me know
on the povray.windows newsgroup. The current master branch should build "out of
the box" (including the OpenEXR library version coming with it) with both Visual
Stuido 2010 and 2015 (using the vs10 project), and any version in between should
require only minor updates to syspovconfig_msvc.h.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
There is just one note that i want to add.
Whatever you do in OpenCL does not only run on "Windows" or "Linux",
its not even limited to run on Graphics cards.
OpenCL makes whatever you do, run on CPU's, GPU's, ASICs and nearly anthing else
that allows for parallel program processing.
Seen like this it may possibly save even work to take a closer look - any time
in the future.
Of course i and anybody understands that it will not be tomorrow as its again a
completely new field, for anybody (for me too).
I can say that there are many, many videos and Tutorials in Youtube on OpenCL.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 06.01.2016 um 06:03 schrieb Mike Horvath:
> > What is the benefit of having GPU rendering rather than just going to
> > the store and buying yourself a faster processor? Are GPUs inherently
> > better at this stuff than CPUs?
>
> The benefit is that GPUs can give you far more floating point operations
> per buck and second than CPUs.
>
> The drawback is, that's only true as long as you're performing the same
> sequence of operations on a vast number of data points in parallel. As
> soon as any data points need special treatment, the other data points'
> computations need to be stalled. So programs need to be written in a
> matter that minimizes such special handling.
I am wondering GPU-support for Pov-ray is coming?
Now we are having GPU stronger and stronger...
Thanks in advance.
Shouyang
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
