POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.text.scene-files : My favourite isosurface (see p.b.i. for image) : Re: My favourite isosurface (see p.b.i. for image) Server Time
19 Jun 2024 20:02:58 EDT (-0400)
  Re: My favourite isosurface (see p.b.i. for image)  
From: Alex Kluchikov
Date: 20 Nov 2003 01:00:02
Message: <web.3fbc5805d6b87b52d68d943d0@news.povray.org>
>
>Alex, if you write the code for your isosurface
>like I have done below, then the image will
>render much faster.
>
>(On my Athlon XP2400+ PC a 512x384 AA0.3 render
>now takes 3m08s, while it earlier took 16m20s.)
>
>Btw.:
>Thank you for showing how you created the texture
>and "environment sphere" for your "cuboids" image
>in p.b.i.
>

You are welcome :)

>
>Tor Olav
>
>
>// ===== 1 ======= 2 ======= 3 ======= 4 ======= 5 ======= 6 ======= 7
>
>#include "functions.inc"  // For f_r() and f_sphere()
> ................
>
>// ===== 1 ======= 2 ======= 3 ======= 4 ======= 5 ======= 6 ======= 7
>
 Thank you. I'll try to write more quick code. But what is the difference
between my and your variants? Why the render time differs so much?
 May be, standard functions (declared in functions.inc) are faster?

 I tried to create functions with as little gradient value as possible. For
example, let's take sphere:

 function{x*x+y*y+z*z-1} has max gradient about 2
 function{pow(x*x+y*y+z*z,1/256)-1} has max gradient about .05 or even less,
while looking the same.

And sometimes it helps to speed up rendering. But I can not understand, why
the code you've post is so much more faster? It seems to me, I need some
time to think...

 Sincerely Yours, Alex Kluchikov.


Post a reply to this message

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.