|
 |
> It should be possible to decrease the amount of memory required
> (divide it by 4). At the first iteration, since blok is a simple cube,
> balk is equivalent to a box { <0, 0, 0>, <5, 1, 1> } although it is
> done with 4 boxes.
I tried to make the code work like that, but it was more complex.
> Of course, this is only true so long as f is set to 1, with higher
> values the results won't look the same...
That is the problem indeed.
I might try to make it work anyway. It should be possible by making the
first "blok" a union of 8 box{0, <5,1,1>}. Then setting the level to 3
will - should :-) - have the same effect as the level 4 in the old file.
But I will do that tommorow since i need some sleep now.
Greetings,
JWV
BTW, thanks to all of you for all the replies!
news:40818b8d$1@news.povray.org...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> JWV wrote:
> | The level-4 render was to much for my laptop :-(. It used 2GB of memory
> | while parsing, and it wasn't finished jet.
> |
> | I will post the source in p.b.sf if someone wants to give it a try on a
> | machine with a LOT of memory :-).
> |
> It should be possible to decrease the amount of memory required
> (divide it by 4). At the first iteration, since blok is a simple cube,
> balk is equivalent to a box { <0, 0, 0>, <5, 1, 1> } although it is
> done with 4 boxes. Even with that I don't have enough RAM to give it a
> try from what you're all saying ("only" 512M) but some of you might
> want to try it.
>
> Of course, this is only true so long as f is set to 1, with higher
> values the results won't look the same...
>
> Jerome
> - --
> ******************************
> * Jerome M. Berger *
> * mailto:jbe### [at] ifrance com *
> * http://jeberger.free.fr/ *
> ******************************
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFAgYuNqIYJdJhyixIRAtY8AKCPvNA3q/2eie6vUFSATB7U9P5O8QCgkBSE
> tJrAJDRGPjd29WnMz9FE/h8=
> =WXIA
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Post a reply to this message
|
|
