 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> If you wonder, I recommend reading their code and finding out. Then you
> will see how it does not work past spheres and triangles.
which is why, *again*, I have to point out I was hinting at using the
GPU solely to speed up povray's ray-triangle intersections.
Is there any trolling in that? Wishing to make povray readily more
usable outside its small math geek audience?
Outside that small niche, no one cares about perfect abstract solids or
slow-rendering math surfaces. Is it trolling to ask one to wake up and
smell the coffee?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17-1-2010 20:08, nemesis wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> If you wonder, I recommend reading their code and finding out. Then you
>> will see how it does not work past spheres and triangles.
>
> which is why, *again*, I have to point out I was hinting at using the
> GPU solely to speed up povray's ray-triangle intersections.
Because it is like pointing out that there are ways to increase the
speed of a car that only works on highways without realizing that it
would mean that you can not use the car anywhere else. That won't work
because, although there may be people living next to a highway that want
to go to work next to the highway, in general it will make the car as a
general means of transportation useless.
> Is there any trolling in that? Wishing to make povray readily more
> usable outside its small math geek audience?
It is not a small and definitely not a math or a geek audience.
> Outside that small niche, no one cares about perfect abstract solids or
> slow-rendering math surfaces. Is it trolling to ask one to wake up and
> smell the coffee?
It becomes trolling when you do that over and over without taking the
previous remarks into account. If you take your time and research those
remarks and show that they are invalid that would be OK. Just repeating
what you think should be done by others is not OK.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 17-1-2010 20:08, nemesis wrote:
>> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>>> If you wonder, I recommend reading their code and finding out. Then you
>>> will see how it does not work past spheres and triangles.
>>
>> which is why, *again*, I have to point out I was hinting at using the
>> GPU solely to speed up povray's ray-triangle intersections.
>
> Because it is like pointing out that there are ways to increase the
> speed of a car that only works on highways without realizing that it
> would mean that you can not use the car anywhere else.
Sounds about right to me. I'm not complaining that a is to narrow for
my car if I can always take another road.
>> Is there any trolling in that? Wishing to make povray readily more
>> usable outside its small math geek audience?
>
> It is not a small and definitely not a math or a geek audience.
It's certainly nowhere near as large as in the CG industry. Here's a
good place to start:
http://forums.cgsociety.org/
Quite a bit more active than even p.o.t, huh? You may search for
pov-ray there.
And if it's not math or geek focused, why it is most of the images in
p.b.i abstract math, RSOCPs or isosurface terrains? There certainly are
too a lot of truly beauty images depicting real-world objects and scenes
-- mostly as triangle meshes, some as painfully constructed CSG -- but
they are the exception.
Quite like people who wish to go to the workplace on bike rather than
taking the highway...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> If you wonder, I recommend reading their code and finding out. Then you
>> will see how it does not work past spheres and triangles.
>
> which is why, *again*, I have to point out I was hinting at using the
> GPU solely to speed up povray's ray-triangle intersections.
>
If we must resort to car analogies, you are asking "Why, if a turbo
charger running 1 lbs of boost does so much for an engine, can we not
run 25 lbs of boost and get even more."
Moving 'just the triangle code' would result in MORE branches, not
fewer, as each ray would have to know, before being cast, whether it's
potential target was a simple GPU handled object, or a complex CPU one.
But we have covered this same detail in other posts that you seem
content to just ignore. As for a commandline flag, if what you want is a
simple triangle renderer that is accelerated by the GPU, then I suggest
you use one.
In short, take the words we have offered on these arguments, for the
last 50-odd posts, and google them. Learn something instead of sitting
there and talking about something you have admitted you do not have even
a bare understanding of. Then, when you have completed even a cursory
study of any part of it, come back and we can talk like grown-ups.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vt edu> wrote:
> content to just ignore. As for a commandline flag, if what you want is a
> simple triangle renderer that is accelerated by the GPU, then I suggest
> you use one.
I do. It's not my loss.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Outside that small niche, no one cares about perfect abstract solids or
> slow-rendering math surfaces. Is it trolling to ask one to wake up and
> smell the coffee?
Then what would distinguish POV from the other industry heavyweights,
such as max or blender?
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > Outside that small niche, no one cares about perfect abstract solids or
> > slow-rendering math surfaces. Is it trolling to ask one to wake up and
> > smell the coffee?
>
> Then what would distinguish POV from the other industry heavyweights,
> such as max or blender?
speeding up triangle intersections on GPU would not take away pov's SDL and
primitives.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> speeding up triangle intersections on GPU would not take away pov's SDL
> and
> primitives.
Yes it would because you wouldn't be able to use both on the same render to
get the speedup you want. So in other words there's no point in changing
POV for this, you might as well use an existing triangle renderer if you
only want to render triangles. It would just be a complete waste of time
for the developers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> 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.
Oh, OK. That would be a lot easier then...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott escreveu:
>> speeding up triangle intersections on GPU would not take away pov's
>> SDL and
>> primitives.
>
> Yes it would because you wouldn't be able to use both on the same render
> to get the speedup you want. So in other words there's no point in
> changing POV for this, you might as well use an existing triangle
> renderer if you only want to render triangles. It would just be a
> complete waste of time for the developers.
Just about as much as using povray to do anything other than abstract math.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
