Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
news:37349612.3D3AF718@pacbell.net...
> Bill DeWitt wrote:
> >
> > > My calculations show that on my PII 400 it will take about a month!8-O
>
>   TGIF  ( Thank Goodness It's a Fractal ).
>
>     It looks interesting indeed. It makes me wonder at the approach
>   used for the construction. You took a big bunch of objects and used
>   them to chip away at something else. To do this you used a method
>   that is know to significantly increase rendering times.
>     Looking at the process in a different way why not just use the big
>   bunch of objects collectively to create the object without having to
>   remove material from the something else in the process. Well it is
>   something to consider anyway and if you could pull it off it would
>  render in a significantly shorter time as your reward.

Thanks Ken,
    I am in fact trying to use one cube scaled down and rotated to cut the
original cube. I had seen that folk were making this shape by stacking boxes
and wanted to try it the other way.
    My thinking process <sound_effect=Clunk WhirrrrrWANG,Clunk WhirrrrrWANG>
was that this was the way the fractal was intended to be, and since I have
this fancy schmancy computer I should make it that way. It allows the macro
to accept a recursion level and go to what ever level of detail I want by
making smaller and smaller cuts. The image I posted were the objects that
would be used to make the cuts at level Five.
    I'm sure that the stacking method can be made to allow that too, but
this was inherent in the method. My original hope was to use a 'bounded by a
box centered on camera' method of recursion that would allow an increasing
level of detail fly-through to render sometime this century.

    As I wrote the first draft of this message I got a power interrupt and
lost 10 hours of rendering, but by then my estimate had refined to about 40
hours at 5 pps. I might finish this after all.

    Bill "The hard way is the easy way" DeWitt

Post a reply to this message