 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] gmail com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> 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...
Not especially, once it was all in memory anyway. :-) As long as you knew
what you were looking for and could find it with normal search tools.
The longest time was waiting for VI to analyze the syntax to color it. Once
I figured out to turn that off, it was just a couple of minutes to load the
file.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> to try to port to one specific architecture. Particularly if that is not
>> supported by the standard setup of a typical POV user.
>
> GPU's are part of every computer nowadays whether you use them or not.
Since you seem to know so much about GPUs, let me ask you this: who is
the top GPU vendor?
Hint: It's not AMD or NVidia.
In fact, Intel has more than 50% market share in GPUs... and they don't
even have a discrete GPU, but only integrated solutions, which are
barely able to run Aero Glass).
The remaining market share is split between NVidia, AMD, and various
specialty shops. However, the lion's share of their sales are in the
form of integrated solutions, rather than discrete cards.
You're living in a world where the majority of people, even if they have
a quad core processor, have GPUs that struggle to play The Sims.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I won't consider a renderer "physically correct" until you create a
> scene to replicate the double-slit experiment and the renderer gives the
> correct image.
In this day and age of such extremely powerful computers, when
commonplace games like Crysis offer near photorealistic graphics, and
average video cards like the HD5850 or the GT280 offer unprecedented
teraflops of processing power, it is inexcusable that POV-Ray should be
stuck with the antiquated method of treating light as a ray!
I demand that everyone immediately halt work on 3.7, and start working
on support for physically accurate light at one! I'm afraid I can't do
it myself, as I don't have the skills, but there are plenty of smart
people here who could finish the job if they would just pull their heads
out of the sand, wake up, and smell the coffee!
;)
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-1-2010 17:36, nemesis wrote:
> 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.
>
That is the second time you mention that. Have you looked in the HOF or
in p.b.i for that matter.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel escreveu:
> On 18-1-2010 17:36, nemesis wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> That is the second time you mention that. Have you looked in the HOF or
> in p.b.i for that matter.
yep, plenty of good-looking mesh scenes there, right? Sadly, since
povray's triangle handling in the near future will be the by far the
slowest out there, I think most artists will move on and the HOF will be
housing far more math abstracts than real-world scenes.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
