 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers escreveu:
> 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!
gee, man!, it was just a hint. You clearly are all just fine with a
slow raytracer for RSOCPs. That's fine to me, though it's sad to be
nostalgic...
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers escreveu:
> 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.
Most people don't have top computers to run complex raytraced scenes
either. Does that mean povray should support the lowest common
denominator hardware so that people can keep up rather than just
upgrading their PCs if they really want faster renderings?
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Most people don't have top computers to run complex raytraced scenes
> either. Does that mean povray should support the lowest common
> denominator hardware so that people can keep up rather than just
> upgrading their PCs if they really want faster renderings?
You can't win. But there ARE alternatives to fighting...
...these aren't the driods you're looking for...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-1-2010 21:42, nemesis wrote:
> 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.
Actually they are almost all mixes of triangular meshes and things not
supported by any current GPU ray tracer.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Most people don't have top computers to run complex raytraced scenes
If you're not already, you should be aware that at *this* point you're being
a dick, regardless of your original intentions.
--
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:
> Most people don't have top computers to run complex raytraced scenes
> either. Does that mean povray should support the lowest common
> denominator hardware so that people can keep up rather than just
> upgrading their PCs if they really want faster renderings?
I'd very much appreciate it if POV didn't *require* advanced hardware.
I myself have a quad core AMD processor, but I'm the only one I know who
has more than 2 cores, and most of the people I know will be buying new
computers long before me. This thing is probably going to last me at
least another 5 years.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> gee, man!, it was just a hint. You clearly are all just fine with a
> slow raytracer for RSOCPs. That's fine to me, though it's sad to be
> nostalgic...
Alright, let me state this as clearly as I can, since you obviously
haven't figured it out yet:
Current GPUs do not support the features necessary to be useful for POV-Ray.
Our options are to either wait for more powerful GPUs, or rewrite the
entire program from scratch.
Since the POV-Team is currently investing a great deal of time working
out bugs in 3.7, the idea of throwing everything out the window and
starting over does not appeal to them. So they have decided to focus on
3.7, and wait for something more useful to come along.
If you would like to contribute your time, and work on making POV GPGPU
compatible, then by all means go ahead. But don't say we're in denial
just because we don't have the time or inclination to do so with the
current options.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Our options are to either wait for more powerful GPUs, or rewrite the
> entire program from scratch.
>
> Since the POV-Team is currently investing a great deal of time working
> out bugs in 3.7, the idea of throwing everything out the window and
> starting over does not appeal to them. So they have decided to focus on
> 3.7, and wait for something more useful to come along.
And, updating the code to 3.7 will make those changes easier once GPUs
offer the capabilities that are needed. So, it is a win/win!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> gee, man!, it was just a hint. You clearly are all just fine with a
> slow raytracer for RSOCPs. That's fine to me, though it's sad to be
> nostalgic...
I'm *not* fine with a slow raytracer for RSOCPs. But, like you, I don't have
the skills to improve it, and unlike you I don't go around ranting that it
should support this and that, especially because I don't know anything about
GPU programming.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> gee, man!, it was just a hint. You clearly are all just fine with a
>> slow raytracer for RSOCPs. That's fine to me, though it's sad to be
>> nostalgic...
>
> I'm *not* fine with a slow raytracer for RSOCPs. But, like you, I don't have
> the skills to improve it, and unlike you I don't go around ranting that it
> should support this and that, especially because I don't know anything about
> GPU programming.
Ok, got better by that last bashing?
It was a hint for possible improvement. I could care less about povray
by now... last one to go out, don't forget to turn off the rays.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
