 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
POV 3.5 b 10
It is possible to write floats as vectors in POV but somehow for standard
include files it can't be done. For example I can't write
Round_Box(-1,1,.1,no)
I have to write
Round_Box(<-1,-1,-1>,<1,1,1>,.1,no)
But it could be done with some simple additions. For example for Round_Box it
can be done with additional two lines at beginnig of macro:
#local A=A+0*x;
#local B=B+0*x;
This behaviour is connected with all macros with vector parameters. If there are
some problems with time or something I can check all standard macros for such
cases and post changed versions somewhere.
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> But it could be done with some simple additions. For example for Round_Box
it
> can be done with additional two lines at beginnig of macro:
>
> #local A=A+0*x;
> #local B=B+0*x;
Good idea.
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> it can be done with additional two lines at beginnig of macro:
>
> #local A=A+0*x;
> #local B=B+0*x;
Or by
#local A = A*<1,1,1>;
for that matter.
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
[ http://www.slimeland.com/images/ ]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 10:09:34 -0500, "Slime" <noo### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> > #local A=A+0*x;
> > #local B=B+0*x;
>
> Or by
> #local A = A*<1,1,1>;
> for that matter.
my version is shorter ;)
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
wrote:
> my version is shorter ;)
>
>
It's not a sig.
What version is faster?
Ingo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17 Jan 2002 10:37:31 -0500, ingo <ing### [at] homenl> wrote:
> in news:a0rd4u4m9q4h7a0ida1fs6918ml9k5uf6r@4ax.com W?odzimierz ABX Skiba
> wrote:
> > my version is shorter ;)
>
> It's not a sig.
but since macro calling is connected with seeking on file then it can be
important sometimes
> What version is faster?
imo it doesn't metter. it is not in loop and both return vector - it is most
important
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
: but since macro calling is connected with seeking on file then it can be
: important sometimes
AFAIK the speed of seeking a file is independent of its size (as it just
modifies a file handler; it doesn't read the file).
--
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17 Jan 2002 10:37:31 -0500, ingo <ing### [at] homenl> wrote:
> What version is faster?
If there is still somebody interested then I've compared:
script 1:
0: #local X=1;
1: #local Y=X+0*x;
2: #local Y=X+0*x;
.....
114688: #local Y=X+0*x;
script 2:
0: #local X=1;
1: #local Y=X*<1,1,1>;
2: #local Y=X*<1,1,1>;
.....
114688: #local Y=X*<1,1,1>;
Each one was started five times with +w1 +h1.
Average total CPU time used reported by NT version for first script was
5.178 s.
Average total CPU time used reported by NT version for second script was
8.790 s.
Done on PII 233 with 128 MB on NT 4 Sp 6
So first one is much faster. IMO becouse of smaller number of parsed tokens.
Good night (and morning for others).
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <vkhd4uoppr1vl1f6k0fvgnbhqbece3k7cb@4ax.com>,
W?odzimierz ABX Skiba <abx### [at] babilonorg> wrote:
> #local A=A+0*x;
> #local B=B+0*x;
I had intended to work around this problem by using
#local A = A + o;
in all those macros, but never got around to it...
No reason to use things like "*< 1, 1, 1>" or "+ 0*x" when "o" (for
"origin") is defined in consts.inc as < 0, 0, 0>. ;-)
--
--
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
