hughes, b. wrote:

> Seems self-evident. Was there a significant render time change? I have to
> ask that since the operative word mentioned was "optimisation".


Yes, due to the nearly mandatory "sturm" and to the increase of the 
number of root-solving (before, when the ray it the bounding box, the 
root solving could have been avoided thanks to a 'simple' if [but that 
if is currently bogus).


> 
> I didn't get the same image output using v3.5 as shown on the web page you
> gave and using the accompanying script.


Only the top two images were done with unmodified 3.1;
The four images at the bottom were done with the patch, that you do not 
have, so of course, you cannot get the same picture.

If the two top images are also different with 3.5 (excepted for any 
gamma correction), then some default values must have been updated from 
3.1 to 3.5 (
or do I need to try them in 3.5 ? I'm a bit lazy right now :-)


> 
> Is this only the version directive used to get a 3.1 image here, or did you
> put it through POV 3.1? Sorry, but I couldn't figure that out from what you
> said.


I put it through 3.1

Post a reply to this message