 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bob Hughes wrote in message <36C21E1D.963E41AE@aol.com>...
>Yep, you're right, that would fill in the colors nicely I would think,
>Buke already says he may do that. That could be a long vacation.
>About the rounded focal blur, think Ken meant in real photography (hey,
>I take pictures a lot too!).
The one feature I don't like about POV is the focal blur. I find that using
an image averager with many images taken from slightly different angles
produces a better result, even though it takes much longer.
Eric
--
"Back in the days when I was a Marxist, my primary concern was that ordinary
people deserved better and that elites were walking all over them. That is
still my primary concern, but the passing decades have taught me that
political elites and cultural elites are doing far more damage than the
market elites could ever get away with doing." -- Thomas Sowell.
--------------------------------
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Heights/2354/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Yeah... radiosity is what it needs. Radiosity, focal blur, blurred
> reflection (from the SuperPatch), atmosphere made with media, and tons of
> area lights!!!!! But you will need to port POV to the Cray Y-MP to render
> it in your lifetime.
>
> Eric
Concerning the Cray Y-MP * Is this the model number for the latest incarnation
of the Cray line ? I think I heard recently that the original company that
founded the Cray computer line disolved and was bought by a recognized computer
manufacturer. The
current methods of manufacturing this last model are so far
removed from the original design and purpose that the "Cray" name on the outside
of the box is more for name recognition than any real relationship to it's
former self.
Is this - True ?
Or
Is this - False ?
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote in message <36CB1081.95E930BD@pacbell.net>...
>
>Concerning the Cray Y-MP * Is this the model number for the latest
incarnation
>of the Cray line ? I think I heard recently that the original company that
>founded the Cray computer line disolved and was bought by a recognized
computer manufacturer. The
>current methods of manufacturing this last model are so far
>removed from the original design and purpose that the "Cray" name on the
outside
>of the box is more for name recognition than any real relationship to it's
>former self.
>
>Is this - True ?
> Or
>Is this - False ?
>
>--
>Ken Tyler
Beats me. I looked in the 1998 Guinness Book of World Records for fastest
computer and it lists the Cray Y-MP C-90. But then again, it lists the 300
MHz Alpha as the fastest CPU, so who knows what's fastest today. The
supercomputing speed record went to 2 linked Intel Paragon
parallel-processing machines with a total of 6768 processors, which achieved
328 gigaflops. Anybody up to porting POV to that machine???
Eric
--
"Back in the days when I was a Marxist, my primary concern was that ordinary
people deserved better and that elites were walking all over them. That is
still my primary concern, but the passing decades have taught me that
political elites and cultural elites are doing far more damage than the
market elites could ever get away with doing." -- Thomas Sowell.
--------------------------------
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Heights/2354/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Small potatoes... Intel made a 1.2 Terraflops machine about 6 months
ago... The US government isn't so worried about nuclear test bans,
because they can model nuclear explosions on their computers now.
Steve
Eric Freeman wrote:
>
> Ken wrote in message <36CB1081.95E930BD@pacbell.net>...
> >
> >Concerning the Cray Y-MP * Is this the model number for the latest
> incarnation
> >of the Cray line ? I think I heard recently that the original company that
> >founded the Cray computer line disolved and was bought by a recognized
> computer manufacturer. The
> >current methods of manufacturing this last model are so far
> >removed from the original design and purpose that the "Cray" name on the
> outside
> >of the box is more for name recognition than any real relationship to it's
> >former self.
> >
> >Is this - True ?
> > Or
> >Is this - False ?
> >
> >--
> >Ken Tyler
>
> Beats me. I looked in the 1998 Guinness Book of World Records for fastest
> computer and it lists the Cray Y-MP C-90. But then again, it lists the 300
> MHz Alpha as the fastest CPU, so who knows what's fastest today. The
> supercomputing speed record went to 2 linked Intel Paragon
> parallel-processing machines with a total of 6768 processors, which achieved
> 328 gigaflops. Anybody up to porting POV to that machine???
>
> Eric
>
> --
> "Back in the days when I was a Marxist, my primary concern was that ordinary
> people deserved better and that elites were walking all over them. That is
> still my primary concern, but the passing decades have taught me that
> political elites and cultural elites are doing far more damage than the
> market elites could ever get away with doing." -- Thomas Sowell.
> --------------------------------
> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Heights/2354/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Just a note, IBM's Pacific Blue posted 3.9 TerraFLOPs when running for Los Alamos
Labs. and
I just saw a note about a computer that did 12 TerraOPs (4 bit intiger math NOT
Floating point). Port POV to Pacific Blue and I think most scenes would render in
20 Minutes or less, even 'STRIKE' at 1024x768 AA3, Focal blur and all lights
converted to area lights! It would be fun to watch it anyway.
Just my 2 cents......
Stephen Lavedas wrote:
> Small potatoes... Intel made a 1.2 Terraflops machine about 6 months
> ago... The US government isn't so worried about nuclear test bans,
> because they can model nuclear explosions on their computers now.
>
> Steve
>
> Eric Freeman wrote:
> >
> > Ken wrote in message <36CB1081.95E930BD@pacbell.net>...
> > >
> > >Concerning the Cray Y-MP * Is this the model number for the latest
> > incarnation
> > >of the Cray line ? I think I heard recently that the original company that
> > >founded the Cray computer line disolved and was bought by a recognized
> > computer manufacturer. The
> > >current methods of manufacturing this last model are so far
> > >removed from the original design and purpose that the "Cray" name on the
> > outside
> > >of the box is more for name recognition than any real relationship to it's
> > >former self.
> > >
> > >Is this - True ?
> > > Or
> > >Is this - False ?
> > >
> > >--
> > >Ken Tyler
> >
> > Beats me. I looked in the 1998 Guinness Book of World Records for fastest
> > computer and it lists the Cray Y-MP C-90. But then again, it lists the 300
> > MHz Alpha as the fastest CPU, so who knows what's fastest today. The
> > supercomputing speed record went to 2 linked Intel Paragon
> > parallel-processing machines with a total of 6768 processors, which achieved
> > 328 gigaflops. Anybody up to porting POV to that machine???
> >
> > Eric
> >
> > --
> > "Back in the days when I was a Marxist, my primary concern was that ordinary
> > people deserved better and that elites were walking all over them. That is
> > still my primary concern, but the passing decades have taught me that
> > political elites and cultural elites are doing far more damage than the
> > market elites could ever get away with doing." -- Thomas Sowell.
> > --------------------------------
> > http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Heights/2354/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mark Palmquist wrote:
>
> Just a note, IBM's Pacific Blue posted 3.9 TerraFLOPs when running for Los Alamos
> Labs. and
> I just saw a note about a computer that did 12 TerraOPs (4 bit intiger math NOT
> Floating point). Port POV to Pacific Blue and I think most scenes would render in
> 20 Minutes or less, even 'STRIKE' at 1024x768 AA3, Focal blur and all lights
> converted to area lights! It would be fun to watch it anyway.
>
> Just my 2 cents......
I doubt the majority of scenes would take even 5 minutes with that
kind of power computational power to work with. Only in your last
examples would it start to slow down any. It would be nice to try
that 100,000 overlapping transparent spheres, with the max trace
level set to a few thousand, to see what would happen to it's render
speed.
If given the opportunity to log on to one of the super dudes and render
your scene it would probably take longer to transfer the finished image
over a 28.8 modem than it would take the computer to render it.
Time to catch up on my back dues in the hackers guild :)
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Just need a port of povray to PVM or better yet s distributed network.
Then you need to know a bunch of people or habe tons of computers.
Ken wrote:
>
> Mark Palmquist wrote:
> >
> > Just a note, IBM's Pacific Blue posted 3.9 TerraFLOPs when running for Los Alamos
> > Labs. and
> > I just saw a note about a computer that did 12 TerraOPs (4 bit intiger math NOT
> > Floating point). Port POV to Pacific Blue and I think most scenes would render in
> > 20 Minutes or less, even 'STRIKE' at 1024x768 AA3, Focal blur and all lights
> > converted to area lights! It would be fun to watch it anyway.
> >
> > Just my 2 cents......
>
> I doubt the majority of scenes would take even 5 minutes with that
> kind of power computational power to work with. Only in your last
> examples would it start to slow down any. It would be nice to try
> that 100,000 overlapping transparent spheres, with the max trace
> level set to a few thousand, to see what would happen to it's render
> speed.
>
> If given the opportunity to log on to one of the super dudes and render
> your scene it would probably take longer to transfer the finished image
> over a 28.8 modem than it would take the computer to render it.
> Time to catch up on my back dues in the hackers guild :)
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
>
> Mark Palmquist wrote:
> >
> > Just a note, IBM's Pacific Blue posted 3.9 TerraFLOPs when running for Los Alamos
> > Labs. and
> > I just saw a note about a computer that did 12 TerraOPs (4 bit intiger math NOT
> > Floating point). Port POV to Pacific Blue and I think most scenes would render in
> > 20 Minutes or less, even 'STRIKE' at 1024x768 AA3, Focal blur and all lights
> > converted to area lights! It would be fun to watch it anyway.
> >
> > Just my 2 cents......
>
> I doubt the majority of scenes would take even 5 minutes with that
> kind of power computational power to work with. Only in your last
> examples would it start to slow down any. It would be nice to try
> that 100,000 overlapping transparent spheres, with the max trace
> level set to a few thousand, to see what would happen to it's render
> speed.
>
Reviving an old question about using raytracing/media/radiosity etc. in
realtime renders...
I calculated that the computer would have to be ~18,000 times faster. Well,
consider FLOPS: an average PII curretly gets about 300 MFLOPS. Pacific Blue
at 3.9 TFLOPS would be about 10,000 times faster. Getting close... Now if
only I had some extra money!
Margus
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
portelli <por### [at] pilot msuedu> writes:
> Just need a port of povray to PVM or better yet s distributed network.
It's not the latest version of POV-Ray, but have a look at
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/6386/pvmpov/index.html
> Then you need to know a bunch of people or habe tons of computers.
Mmmmh...
http://hst33124.phys.uu.nl/~benndorf/clown/
This event was real fun.
Thomas
--
http://www.fmi.uni-konstanz.de/~willhalm
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
>
> Concerning the Cray Y-MP * Is this the model number for the latest incarnation
> of the Cray line ? I think I heard recently that the original company that
> founded the Cray computer line disolved and was bought by a recognized computer
manufacturer. The
> current methods of manufacturing this last model are so far
> removed from the original design and purpose that the "Cray" name on the outside
> of the box is more for name recognition than any real relationship to it's
> former self.
>
> Is this - True ?
> Or
> Is this - False ?
>
Well, Cray has been bought by SGI. Have a look at
http://www.sgi.com/products/supercomputers.html
I looks like the T90 is the front machine for vector processing now. If
you arie into parallel computing the T3E should be your choice (some
here in Stuttgart prefer the NEC SX-4 for it's different memory
architecture). I don't know about the design changes but the FORTRAN
code that worked on the older machines also worked on the newer ones.
Still nice computers!
Marc
--
Marc Schimmler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
