Ken wrote in message <37EC0231.FE241C79@pacbell.net>...
>
>
>Eitan Tal wrote:
>>
>> how many objects povray can support in one scene?
>>
>> I am making a whole city made out of cards (playing cards) - bridges,
>> seas, towers and so on. and I am getting worried when I see 800+ objects
>> and growing...
>>
>> if 800 is for simple 8 floored house, what would happen about 20 floored
>> tower and a golden bridge 2 and the land itself? that would be
>> 8,000,000+ objects
>
>Pov can handle it if you have enough memory on your system. I have had
>over 1,500,000 objects in one scene before and Pov had no problems
>with it.


From a quick look at the source code, the limit at the moment appears to be
2,147,483,648 objects, however, this may just be a limitation in the
bounding box code.

Mark

Post a reply to this message

In article <37ec5d43@news.povray.org> , "Mark Wagner" 
<mar### [at] gtenet> wrote:

> From a quick look at the source code, the limit at the moment appears to be
> 2,147,483,648 objects, however, this may just be a limitation in the
> bounding box code.

You may want to run on a 64 bit system then...


    Thorsten


____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

... with about a terabyte of RAM ...
rc

Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in message
news:37ecd3f6@news.povray.org...
> In article <37ec5d43@news.povray.org> , "Mark Wagner"
> <mar### [at] gtenet> wrote:
>
> > From a quick look at the source code, the limit at the moment appears to
be
> > 2,147,483,648 objects, however, this may just be a limitation in the
> > bounding box code.
>
> You may want to run on a 64 bit system then...
>
>
>     Thorsten

Post a reply to this message

So that's why my scene won't render...I have 2,147,483,650 objects.....and
they are all critical to the scene.   ;-)

--Rainer

Mark Wagner <mar### [at] gtenet> wrote in message
news:37ec5d43@news.povray.org...
> From a quick look at the source code, the limit at the moment appears to
be
> 2,147,483,648 objects, however, this may just be a limitation in the
> bounding box code.
>
> Mark

Post a reply to this message

Rainer Mager wrote:
> 
> So that's why my scene won't render...I have 2,147,483,650 objects.....and
> they are all critical to the scene.   ;-)
> 
> --Rainer

I need a larger monitor because I don't even have that many pixels on my screen.

-- 
Ken Tyler
1100+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html

Post a reply to this message

Mark Wagner <mar### [at] gtenet> wrote:
: From a quick look at the source code, the limit at the moment appears to be
: 2,147,483,648 objects

  I wonder why this and not 4,294,967,296.
  Is this another example of "should use unsigned integers because negative
numbers are never used, but signed integers are used instead because it's
easier it type 'int' instead of 'unsigned'"?

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

>   I wonder why this and not 4,294,967,296.
>   Is this another example of "should use unsigned integers because
negative
> numbers are never used, but signed integers are used instead because it's
> easier it type 'int' instead of 'unsigned'"?

I've heard it argued that unsigned ints don't have as much cross-platform
support, though I don't know whether it's true or not.

Post a reply to this message

Edward Coffey <e.c### [at] ugradunimelbeduau> wrote:
: I've heard it argued that unsigned ints don't have as much cross-platform
: support, though I don't know whether it's true or not.

  Unsigned integers are (of course) part of the ANSI C standard, so I don't
understand why it should be a portability problem.
  It shouldn't be a performance problem. AFAIK in most of currently used
computers signed and unsigned integers are equally fast.

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

hehehe...it's probably the old truth that it's harder to type "unsigned"
or "unsigned long integer" than just "int".

Have you noticed that most of M$ installation programs wrap around 2GB
boundaries when reporting free space on the harddrive?

>   Unsigned integers are (of course) part of the ANSI C standard, so I don't
> understand why it should be a portability problem.
>   It shouldn't be a performance problem. AFAIK in most of currently used
> computers signed and unsigned integers are equally fast.
> 
> --
> main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
> ):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

I have learnt this: _Always_ use unsigned types as default. Use signed
types _only_ of you really need negative numbers. You will save yourself a
lot of trouble.

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message