Todd Carnes <tod### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 7/4/2013 11:48 AM, Warp wrote:
> > Todd Carnes <tod### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >> The general user is not going to care how much you've improved the trace
> >> time, if your overall time to finish the scene increases. As far as
> >> they're concerned, the program is slower.
> >
> > There's some kind of misunderstanding here.
> >
> > With POV-Ray 3.6 it took 8 seconds to get the final image.
> >
> > With POV-Ray 3.7 it took 5 seconds to get the final image.
> >
> > Where exactly is this "the user has to wait longer" you are seeing?
> > Because I'm not seeing it. The user had to way 3 seconds longer with
> > POV-Ray 3.6 in order to get the image than with POV-Ray 3.7.
> >
>
> No, just as the OP posted more than once...
>
> POV-Ray 3.6 took 8.17 seconds to get to the final image.
> POV-Ray 3.7 took 9.749 seconds to get to the final image.
>
> I don't understand why you can't read these numbers for yourself. I will
> copy them from the OP's post repost them again below.
>
> For the record, I'm finding this whole "discussion" about a render that
> only has a second or two difference to be pretty pointless. Whether you
> choose open your eyes and actually read what was posted or not, I am
> going to drop this pointless conversation.
>
> When I post my first question, I have worked on another scene and the time for
 rendering was strongly increase with v3.7 (in this case the difference was more
than one or two seconds). The scene I have posted here is just an example test.

Post a reply to this message