Op 22-9-2021 om 09:08 schreef Thomas de Groot:
> Op 22/09/2021 om 02:47 schreef Samuel B.:
>> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>>> Following an old discussion in 2014:
>>> I took up Robert McGregor's code to see how it could be tweaked to
>>> obtain a nice haircut. 10000 hairs were planted here. To give a rough
>>> approximation: parsing took about 10 minutes and complete (stochastic)
>>> render about half an hour with an i5 machine (Win10; Pov version 3.8).
>>> The small highlights on the hairs resulted from a combination
>>> normal/finish choices.
>> Hey, a fellow i5 owner :) I've got a 6500 here. It's a really good chip.
> <grin> I have an i5 8250 and an i7 8750 here. For some arcane and
> absolutely trivial reasons, I am using the i5 more than the i7, but
> there it is. :-)
>> Ten minutes of parsing seems a little steep. Is the code having to
>> every triangle, or just the scalp when choosing to place a hair? And I
>> sphere_sweeps can be pretty slow on their own, but I thought they just
>> the render time. Thirty minutes of render time doesn't seem as
>> terrible as it
>> could be, but it's still a little high.
> Not sure as I have not been monitoring closely what is going on, I guess
> it is the building of the individual mesh2 hairs which sums up. In a
> next run , I shall save/read the hair meshes and that goes faster in the
> end imo. But, not trivial, I had the laptop battery in "best battery
> life" mode; "best performance" mode is certainly faster indeed.
Just additional info: with laptop connected to the electricity socket
and on "best performance", parsing while writing away the mesh2 hairs
(converted by meshmaker.inc) to files, took about 6 minutes, while total
render time was 22 minutes.
Reading the mesh2 files parsed in 41 seconds, and total render time took
In all cases, stochastic settings were: +am3 +a0.01 +ac0.90 +r3, with
+wt7 for the number of threads to be used.
Post a reply to this message