 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 03:28:00 -0200, nemesis wrote:
>>
>>> It was a hint for possible improvement.
>> Not really, no - it's been an ongoing obsession of yours, even in light
>> (pun not intended) of countless people who know a lot more about how the
>> software works patiently explaining why it's not practical.
>
> The only explanation so far being thrown has been: "[stuff i made up to prove my
point]".
I have stated my intention to look into this, and you keep ranting and
railing about how no one will listen; either with intent to demean those
who are trying in ways that you do not understand, or simply to troll.
You have gone beyond making a point and have wandered, intentionally or
not, into insulting the people who you expect to listen to you. So, at
this point, I must consider your opinion to be worthless.
Whether the GPU code you have pointed out proves useful or not, your
actual contribution has been negligible. When you have actual code, that
applies to POV-Ray specifically, and not just links to thinks you do not
understand but somehow would like to see POV-Ray do anyways, feel free
to contact me. Otherwise, stuff it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp escreveu:
> Well, since the code is ready, go ahead and integrate it in POV-Ray,
> rather than whining about it. It's not like POV-Ray is closed-source.
Thought it was a genuine question of yours. forget.
I'm not whining nor demanding povray to evolve, just thought people
around here would enjoy the idea that GPU's are finally getting ready to
boost raytracing, despite many years of such trumpeting here and
elsewhere.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian escreveu:
> I have stated my intention to look into this...
...and then proceeded to precisely put up with all those excuses about
non-triangle surfaces and all other povray features that have no such
use for a GPU. I thought you changed your mind.
I'm not ranting, nor whining, nor demanding anything. I just thought
most would here would be glad to know GPU's are finally there for
raytracing speedup. I was wrong, as always.
There's plenty of code you may find that relates to povray about general
raytracing features if you follow the links I provide. I can help with
any SQL coding if you want...
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Warp escreveu:
> > Well, since the code is ready, go ahead and integrate it in POV-Ray,
> > rather than whining about it. It's not like POV-Ray is closed-source.
> Thought it was a genuine question of yours. forget.
What did I say to deserve that? I said: You have POV-Ray, open source,
and you have a library to calculate ray-triangle intersections with the
GPU, open source. What stops you from integrating the latter in the former?
> I'm not whining nor demanding povray to evolve, just thought people
> around here would enjoy the idea that GPU's are finally getting ready to
> boost raytracing, despite many years of such trumpeting here and
> elsewhere.
Then go and do it.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> You have POV-Ray, open source,
> and you have a library to calculate ray-triangle intersections with the
> GPU, open source. What stops you from integrating the latter in the
> former?
GPL incompatibility with POV-Ray license?
(SCNR)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19-1-2010 22:51, nemesis wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian escreveu:
>> I have stated my intention to look into this...
>
> ...and then proceeded to precisely put up with all those excuses about
> non-triangle surfaces and all other povray features that have no such
> use for a GPU. I thought you changed your mind.
>
> I'm not ranting, nor whining, nor demanding anything. I just thought
> most would here would be glad to know GPU's are finally there for
> raytracing speedup. I was wrong, as always.
Ok, this is going to be my last try: everybody here would love POV to be
faster. Only based on the information we have got, GPU programming won't
work at the moment. As soon as it is feasible somebody will implement
things.
You seem to be surprised again and again that even if we look at the
same sources, we don't reach the same conclusions. You attribute that to
malice and silly conservatism. The fact of the matter is that the people
who reach that other conclusion do so based on the fact that they know
more than you, not less. We know how to program at a low level, we know
how a CPU works internally, we also know how a GPU works, and we know
how POV works. Based on all that we have concluded that ATM no general
GPU library can support POV.
You might be right in that a ray-tracer that has almost the POV syntax
but does not support the entire set of primitives and textures could be
implemented now on a GPU. But even if that were the case it would cost a
lot of manpower that we don't have and the result would almost certainly
be unusable in a few years time. So we think that it would be a waste of
our precious time and that we would not like the limitations anyway.
There will come a time when POV will use GPUs, but that time is not now.
Also remember that the time it takes for a render is seldom the limiting
factor. If POV gets faster we see opportunities to add just that little
bit extra to our scenes. Just like starting up a computer takes the same
order of magnitude of time now as it did 30 years ago. Scrolling a page
in Word also takes about as much time as it did on a C64. It is all
about how much time you are willing to spend on it. The reason that I am
saying that is that apart from just speeding up with Moore's law you can
increase the performance of POV by introducing a new algorithm or trick.
There is a surprising number of entries in p.b.i. that are about how to
achieve an effect.
Another observation: Margareth Thatcher has played a big role in
achieving that the EU is much less democratic than it should be. Just by
being stubbornly aggressive on anything that was going on in the EU.
Nobody wanted to be associated with that sort of single mindedness and
nobody wanted to let her hold up every discussion forever. The result is
that there was a lot that could not be discussed openly.
We had a similar thing in this group. I don't know if JPG2000 is an
improvement over standard JPG, but I know that I never looked seriously
into that. Nor did I ever try irfanview. And I know why.
My advice: if you want to increase the possibility that one day soon POV
will be able to use GPUs, just shut up about it. You may point us
towards new developments, that is what p.o-t is for, but never try to
tell anybody what he should do.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > You have POV-Ray, open source,
> > and you have a library to calculate ray-triangle intersections with the
> > GPU, open source. What stops you from integrating the latter in the
> > former?
> GPL incompatibility with POV-Ray license?
POV-Ray 3.7 will probably have a GPL license.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> The only explanation so far being thrown has been: "we don't want to speed up
> povray's ray-triangle intersections because it would make it much more useful to
> people outside our small geek niche and those people wouldn't be interested in
> using other povray features thus making us feel unloved".
GPU acceleration will be useful when the following conditions are met:
1) Support for sophisticated branching
2) Full double-precision accuracy
3) Large memory sets (other than textures)
4) Independent shaders running on distinct units.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> I'm not whining nor demanding povray to evolve, just thought people
> around here would enjoy the idea that GPU's are finally getting ready to
> boost raytracing
They're getting close. Have you read the specs for the current version
of OpenCL, and verified that it supports the features needed for POV-Ray?
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> I'm not ranting, nor whining, nor demanding anything. I just thought
> most would here would be glad to know GPU's are finally there for
> raytracing speedup. I was wrong, as always.
Are you ever happy to see a dead horse?
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
