|
|
> Neither, I am talking about the syntax. Something like:
> #persistent Name = Value;
> would be better.
Agreed.
> If it's going to be implemented, it might as well be done right the
> first time.
Sure, but you probably know quite well that making something
right the very first time, in software development I mean, is either
a piece of luck, or some good time spent to think of it before (and
nobody can think of everything before actually implementing). Maybe
it's even only utopia :o)
> Having it be a feature of one type of object is limiting,
> inconsistent, and annoying.
Yeah. Again I did it for a very specific task. I don't mind
if my patch is not used by anybody but me. I did release it only
because it worked for me, and some (few) found it useful as well.
In general I perfectly agree with you: to make things as
general as possible, as good as possible. But sometimes it's worth
making some specialized stuff, as a quick working answer to a very
particular situation. I don't intend my little mods to come up into
the official POV anyway...
> And your assumption that people will only
> want meshes to persist is just wrong...tree generators, particle or
> physics simulations, etc.
Okay, I only have a very narrow usage of POV, that's why I
did not think of what you point out -- who said I'm narrow-minded ? ;-)
Sounds like those persistent things will require a completely
new POV4 engine ?
- NC
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> In article <3eac5446@news.povray.org> , Wolfgang Wieser <wwi### [at] gmxde>
> wrote:
>
>> I cannot imagine that.
>> I have to wait >4 minutes to get 1 million triangles parsed
>> on a 1.4 GHz box.
>>
>> Furthermore, you must have more than 4Gb of virtual memory.
>
> No, that just implies there is something wrong with the data you have.
> Could you show a few pieces of the data here?
>
No Problem.
It's a simple mesh (not mesh2 which eliminates the need for hash lookups
and thus parses faster).
triangle { <0.0145291,-0.00082502,3.33516>,
<0.0145319,-0.000761583,3.33501>, <0,-0,3.33654> }
triangle { <0.0145319,-0.000761583,3.33501>, <0,-0,3.33654>, <0,-0,3.33663>
}
triangle { <0.0145319,-0.000761583,3.33501>,
<0.0145352,-0.000698175,3.33504>, <0,-0,3.33663> }
triangle { <0.0145352,-0.000698175,3.33504>, <0,-0,3.33663>, <0,-0,3.3369> }
triangle { <0.0145352,-0.000698175,3.33504>,
<0.0145391,-0.000634792,3.33528>, <0,-0,3.3369> }
triangle { <0.0145391,-0.000634792,3.33528>, <0,-0,3.3369>, <0,-0,3.33684> }
triangle { <0.0145391,-0.000634792,3.33528>,
<0.0145406,-0.000571301,3.33501>, <0,-0,3.33684> }
triangle { <0.0145406,-0.000571301,3.33501>, <0,-0,3.33684>, <0,-0,3.33669>
}
triangle { <0.0145406,-0.000571301,3.33501>,
<0.0145429,-0.000507851,3.33501>, <0,-0,3.33669> }
triangle { <0.0145429,-0.000507851,3.33501>, <0,-0,3.33669>, <0,-0,3.33666>
}
triangle { <0.0145429,-0.000507851,3.33501>,
<0.0145449,-0.000444387,3.33498>, <0,-0,3.33666> }
triangle { <0.0145449,-0.000444387,3.33498>, <0,-0,3.33666>, <0,-0,3.33687>
}
Anything wrong with the data? :)
Parse time could be increased by using mesh2 but mem usage?
Wolfgang
Post a reply to this message
|
|