Beta 8 is out now:

https://github.com/POV-Ray/povray/releases/tag/v3.7.1-beta.8

This one should fix a lot of the cubic spline sphere sweep artifacts.

The new beta also adds support for the optimized noise generators to the
Unix version. Note that there is some possibility that this might
/reduce/ performance on some machines, so you may want to do a
performance comparison. Depending on your results, we may need to do a
bit more work on this one.

Post a reply to this message

On 05/20/2017 09:06 AM, clipka wrote:
> Beta 8 is out now:
> 
> https://github.com/POV-Ray/povray/releases/tag/v3.7.1-beta.8
> 
> This one should fix a lot of the cubic spline sphere sweep artifacts.
> 
> The new beta also adds support for the optimized noise generators to the
> Unix version. Note that there is some possibility that this might
> /reduce/ performance on some machines, so you may want to do a
> performance comparison. Depending on your results, we may need to do a
> bit more work on this one.
> 

On my I3-4130 two core 4 thread at 3.4GZ, Ubuntu 16.06 and the 
--benchmark, I am seeing:

Threads==cores (+wt2) : -6.59%

Threads==threads (+wt4) : -12.40%

In a bit of a surprise to me the new noise code especially helps where 
threads > cores.

Most that I have run is faster depending upon how much noise is used.

However, I did find one case running a couple isosurfaces using the 
f_hetero_mf function where I am seeing a 3.8% slowdown for +wt4. I've 
done no digging. Any ideas as to why this might be so?

Thanks much Christoph for making the speed up available to more than 
windows users and AMD, Intel for the base noise code updates.

Bill P.

Post a reply to this message

Am 20.05.2017 um 17:54 schrieb William F Pokorny:

> On my I3-4130 two core 4 thread at 3.4GZ, Ubuntu 16.06 and the
> --benchmark, I am seeing:
> 
> Threads==cores (+wt2) : -6.59%
> 
> Threads==threads (+wt4) : -12.40%
> 
> In a bit of a surprise to me the new noise code especially helps where
> threads > cores.

<shrugs>
That's the magic of hyperthreading optimizations.


> However, I did find one case running a couple isosurfaces using the
> f_hetero_mf function where I am seeing a 3.8% slowdown for +wt4. I've
> done no digging. Any ideas as to why this might be so?

`f_hetero_mf` is a noise-based function, so /some/ effect is to be expected.

Maybe on your machine the hand-optimized implementation of the `Noise`
function (which is used by `f_hetero_mf`) happens to be slower than the
compiler-optimized one, while the hand-optimized implementation of the
`DNoise` function (which is used by turbulence warp and similar effects)
is faster than the compiler-optimized one.

Post a reply to this message

I have a minor suggestion to make, for future Windows-installer beta releases--
but it depends on the answer to a question: Is the additional 'editor' download
(povwin-3.7-beta-editor) actually *different* or changed in any way, from beta
to beta?

If it is, then I would suggest re-wording the editor's file name to
povwin-3.7-beta-8-editor,  for example. The reason being, if I want to keep
older beta installers (and their respective editors) in my Windows download
folder (for making comparisons between beta behaviors later), it would be easier
to have a respective beta AND its installer clearly labled as a particular
version.

Of course, if the 'editor' file doesn't change between betas, then there's no
problem.

Post a reply to this message

I forgot to ask this as well: Since the beta and its editor are *separate*
installs, does *un-installing* a beta also un-install the editor at the same
time? I've always assumed that it does-- and I re-install the editor every time
I install a new beta.

Post a reply to this message

Am 21.05.2017 um 16:34 schrieb Kenneth:
> I have a minor suggestion to make, for future Windows-installer beta releases--
> but it depends on the answer to a question: Is the additional 'editor' download
> (povwin-3.7-beta-editor) actually *different* or changed in any way, from beta
> to beta?

No, it's the very same editor DLL installer. We don't intend to do any
changes during the beta phase -- as a matter of fact, it's even
essentially the same as the 3.7.0 editor DLLs, except for some registry
key and directory names, as required to keep the beta separated from the
stable version.

Post a reply to this message

Am 21.05.2017 um 16:44 schrieb Kenneth:
> I forgot to ask this as well: Since the beta and its editor are *separate*
> installs, does *un-installing* a beta also un-install the editor at the same
> time? I've always assumed that it does-- and I re-install the editor every time
> I install a new beta.

I'm not perfectly sure, but my understanding is that the beta
un-installer does in fact also un-install the editor DLLs.

Next time I'm installing a new beta on my own machine I'll have a closer
look at this.

Post a reply to this message