"Wlodzimierz ABX Skiba" wrote:
> Rune wrote:
> > For image 1 (grey pigment) the trace time was about 7 min.
> > making a total render time of about 17 min.
>
> my render time was about 1h43m

If we compensate for our different computers my method is perhaps about 10
times faster.

> result is the same becouse I think triangles of mesh are small
> comparing to the pixel size, I think we should compare something
> bigger :-)

The Chevy model is a typical mesh model I think, so it's fair to use it as
an example. I know very well that your method has the obvious advantage that
it works perfectly on all objects. No method is better than the other, it's
just a matter of what you need to do.

> > Note though that for these images the textures were not
> > deformed together with the meshes.
>
> Note that with my method they will be automatically deformed together

With mine too if just you turn the feature on, which I didn't here, because
it would be pointless since all the pigment were plain pigments.

> > Deformed textures would with my method most likely increase
> > the memory use a lot and the parse time too.
>
> And note that in my method deformed textures not increase memory
> use and not increase parse time.

With mine neither as soon as mesh2 UV-mapping supports 3D-vectors.

But hey, at least my Chevy model had real textures! ;)

Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated January 28)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org

Post a reply to this message