 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Watch him wiggle again but with caustics this time around. It's a
little over 1 meg, so I uploaded it to an aol ftp space.
http://users.aol.com/bingodaclowno/fish.mpg
-Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Whoa! That's a lot of photons. Your fish looks like it could have a
double-jointed tail when it swings to its left. Only my perception of it?
Not sure.
Wish my photon attempts could be like that, animated and all too.
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
That looks really nice, definately worth the extra download.
--
Phil
...coffee?...yes please! extra sugar,extra cream...Thank you.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Whoa! That's a lot of photons. Your fish looks like it could have a
>double-jointed tail when it swings to its left. Only my perception of
it?
I think what you are seeing is the movement of the caudal fin (the one
behind the dorsal). The idea is that it's moving to keep the fish in
place. You were right when you commented on the first version - the
fish does look like it's pinned down in the middle. I need to work out
a more complex animated sequence so that he moves around more but still
stays in the same general location.
Btw, the details on this animation are interesting. Total render time
for the 120 frames was about 24 hours. I rendered it in 12 hours
because I ran two copies of the program on my dual 400mhz system. Peak
memory usage hovered around 70MB.
-Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>That looks really nice, definately worth the extra download.
Thanks, I was hoping it would come out like it did.
-Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mike" <Ama### [at] aol com> wrote in message
news:398C27D9.9302D286@aol.com...
| because I ran two copies of the program on my dual 400mhz system. Peak
| memory usage hovered around 70MB.
Lucky you. Are you getting a memory increase over the duration? Or was
that steady throughout?
I still see the infamous peak memory escalation from time to time here, when
I'm thinking to look for it.
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Are you getting a memory increase over the duration? Or was
>that steady throughout?
It seemed pretty steady, flucuating slowly from around 40mb to 80mb.
Something more interesting I noticed was that the CPU usage really falls
off during the photon gathering step. You'd think it would be near 100%
through the whole thing, but in that pre-render step it starts out near
100% and then falls off in a linear fashion to almost nothing before
it's ready to render.
I wonder if there are breaks in CPU usage as the photons are stored in
memory...otherwise I'd think that it's not working as fast as it could.
-Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mike" <Ama### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:398C9F9B.3DB205AA@aol.com...
|
| I wonder if there are breaks in CPU usage as the photons are stored in
| memory...otherwise I'd think that it's not working as fast as it could.
Sounds like typical program compiler (or code) troubles to me, not using the
CPU consistently.
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
