 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> On 16-1-2010 16:40, nemesis wrote:
> > I look at heavyweights in the industry at large and they seem to think
> > differently. Either you are right and they will all be broke by
> > investing on a fad or you are
>
> They can afford to invest in something that will only last a few years.
> In fact they have to in order to survive long enough to participate in
> the next hype. So I might be right and they are still doing the right
> thing.
BTW, people said videogames were a fad too. Funny thing is that it's the
industry that drives much of PC's progress today, most notably GPU's. It's been
a pretty long fad so far...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> BTW, people said videogames were a fad too.
Do you have any actual references to that?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> BTW, people said videogames were a fad too.
>
> Do you have any actual references to that?
not at hand, Mr. Wikipedia. I remember reading something like that from
people in the industry in the "Game Over" book about old days Nintendo.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> It wasn't that long ago that I had a 9 gig textual database dump I
> needed to do something interactive with, and I spent about 10 minutes
> trying to figure out the best program for writing the mung in before I
> realized "hey, wait, I have 16G RAM on this machine. I can just open it
> with VI."
...!! O_O
Damn, I don't even want to know how many pages you'd have to scroll
through to get to the part that you actually want...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>
>> It wasn't that long ago that I had a 9 gig textual database dump I
>> needed to do something interactive with, and I spent about 10 minutes
>> trying to figure out the best program for writing the mung in before I
>> realized "hey, wait, I have 16G RAM on this machine. I can just open
>> it with VI."
>
> ...!! O_O
>
> Damn, I don't even want to know how many pages you'd have to scroll
> through to get to the part that you actually want...
>
There are these things called "regular expressions" that help with that :)
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>> Chambers wrote:
>>>> 1) Support for sophisticated branching
>>> When this happens, the GPU will be exactly the same speed as the CPU.
>>> The GPU is fast *because* it doesn't support sophisticated branching.
>> That's too bad, because POV requires sophisticated branching.
>
> yeah, I wonder how a path tracer, which requires more branching for each new ray
> spawned than a conventional raytracer, did it...
>
If you wonder, I recommend reading their code and finding out. Then you
will see how it does not work past spheres and triangles.
If that was sarcastic, then you just managed a branching statement and
you must not be a GPU.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> On 16-1-2010 16:42, nemesis wrote:
>> troll
Now, that explains everything.
andrel wrote:
> I am not fed up. A bit tired of repeating the same discussion over and
> over. We try to spread the load by alternating who is answering this
> time*. You just wait until it is Warp's, or even better Thorsten's,
> turn, then it gets really funny.
>
>
> * nothing formal, just the way things develop.
Now I see why the standard reply is so harsh. I have tried, repeatedly,
when this topic comes up to offer actual reasons, enough key words and
phrases that anyone could google for and learn from. Most of the time,
that seems to work. The person who thinks about GPGPU knows enough to
pick out those terms, and find the information themselves. Here, how
ever, we have hit the wall in that it appears nemesis does not want to
know why he is wrong, and only wants to complain. Humor and/or killfiles
are all I have left.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Chambers escreveu:
>> I can't recall POV-Ray ever being one of the fastest raytracers around.
>
> I can recall it being used as a useful benchmarking tool once it got
> multicore.
So can I, but what has that to do with whether or not POV is the fastest
raytracer around?
> In any cases, you get it wrong: the amazing speed up is not due to
> native GPU triangle handling, but faster ray intersection calculations
> thanks to the GPU sheer parallel vector processing. You can see that in
> smallptGPU where you get perfect math spheres much faster, no meshes in
> sight.
Yes, I'm familiar with the architecture. However, that was one specific
instance of how other programs compromise quality where POV doesn't.
It's not the only way.
Other programs, for instance, also do some or all of the following:
tesselate objects, make liberal use of floats, use fixed textures rather
than procedural, and handle lighting via precomputed lightmaps. This
list is by no means exhaustive nor definitive.
If POV were to accept such optimizations, then it, too, could be made to
run well on upcoming GPUs (I still doubt the current crop would do well).
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> scott wrote:
>> Because nothing else will come along with a nice SDL like POV has.
>> Almost all other raytracers *require* you to use an external mesh
>> modeller to generate your scene - POV doesn't which IMO is its
>> strongest point.
>
> That, and excellent procedural textures, is why I'm interested in it. :-)
>
Honestly, that's one of my favorite parts :)
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Damn, I don't even want to know how many pages you'd have to scroll
> through to get to the part that you actually want...
Interestingly enough, it was crap in the first few and last few pages that I
wanted to change. (I.e., the commands setting up the tables and such.) The
data itself was cool.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
