 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I made some wallpaper for the computer where I work and thought it was
kinda neat . The grass is from the reeds_plugin.inc found on the
binaries scene files and the golf ball is something I found a long time
ago. I scanned our logo for the image_map. This took 15.5 hrs to render
on my PII 450 (I'm making one for my wallpaper but this time I gave it
to my 300
to render I think it will take three days to finish. Line 190 after 21
hrs
going to 1280x1024). I like the one blade that threeds thru two of the
dimples.
Buke
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'Reedsblur1.jpg' (60 KB)
Download 'us-ascii' (0 KB)
Preview of image 'Reedsblur1.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Great picture!!!!!,
I was thinking about doing a simillar image for my desktop but could not
quite figure out the dimples. Would you post/E-mail me the source for the
scene?
Buke wrote:
> I made some wallpaper for the computer where I work and thought it was
> kinda neat . The grass is from the reeds_plugin.inc found on the
> binaries scene files and the golf ball is something I found a long time
> ago. I scanned our logo for the image_map. This took 15.5 hrs to render
> on my PII 450 (I'm making one for my wallpaper but this time I gave it
> to my 300
> to render I think it will take three days to finish. Line 190 after 21
> hrs
> going to 1280x1024). I like the one blade that threeds thru two of the
> dimples.
> Buke
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wow! I think we have a winner in the grass contest (until someone else
does one better).
Buky golf eh? LOL.
-Mike
Buke wrote:
>
> I made some wallpaper for the computer where I work and thought it was
> kinda neat . The grass is from the reeds_plugin.inc found on the
> binaries scene files and the golf ball is something I found a long time
> ago. I scanned our logo for the image_map. This took 15.5 hrs to render
> on my PII 450 (I'm making one for my wallpaper but this time I gave it
> to my 300
> to render I think it will take three days to finish. Line 190 after 21
> hrs
> going to 1280x1024). I like the one blade that threeds thru two of the
> dimples.
> Buke
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [Image]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
One question: where's the snail? Behind the golf ball? Oops, make that 2
questions.
Took me a while to locate that errant grassblade. Must be more obvious
at 1280x1024. And then again, it would be based on monitor screen size
which, unless you have a 20+ inch monitor, shouldn't be too noticeable.
Make for a great Ad to sell 450MHz Pentiums if more people knew what
render time is about.
Buke wrote:
>
> I made some wallpaper for the computer where I work and thought it was
> kinda neat . The grass is from the reeds_plugin.inc found on the
> binaries scene files and the golf ball is something I found a long time
> ago. I scanned our logo for the image_map. This took 15.5 hrs to render
> on my PII 450 (I'm making one for my wallpaper but this time I gave it
> to my 300
> to render I think it will take three days to finish. Line 190 after 21
> hrs
> going to 1280x1024). I like the one blade that threeds thru two of the
> dimples.
> Buke
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [Image]
--
omniVERSE: beyond the universe
http://members.aol.com/inversez/POVring.htm
=Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Buke wrote:
>
> I made some wallpaper for the computer where I work and thought it was
> kinda neat . The grass is from the reeds_plugin.inc found on the
> binaries scene files and the golf ball is something I found a long time
> ago. I scanned our logo for the image_map. This took 15.5 hrs to render
> on my PII 450 (I'm making one for my wallpaper but this time I gave it
> to my 300
> to render I think it will take three days to finish. Line 190 after 21
> hrs
> going to 1280x1024). I like the one blade that threeds thru two of the
> dimples.
> Buke
Nice. No, very good. Only thing, which disturbs me, is too "strong"
focal blur - a little bit bigger view depth would be better. IMHO, of
course.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Vahur Krouverk wrote:
>
> Buke wrote:
> >
> > I made some wallpaper for the computer where I work and thought it was
> > kinda neat . The grass is from the reeds_plugin.inc found on the
> > binaries scene files and the golf ball is something I found a long time
> > ago. I scanned our logo for the image_map. This took 15.5 hrs to render
> > on my PII 450 (I'm making one for my wallpaper but this time I gave it
> > to my 300
> > to render I think it will take three days to finish. Line 190 after 21
> > hrs
> > going to 1280x1024). I like the one blade that threeds thru two of the
> > dimples.
> > Buke
>
> Nice. No, very good. Only thing, which disturbs me, is too "strong"
> focal blur - a little bit bigger view depth would be better. IMHO, of
> course.
I didn't want to bring it up but that is a good point. I have done
a little photography over the years, both standard lenses and macros.
In shots like this you will get a little out of focus on the peripheries
but the vignetting should mostly occur around the square courners of
the image and not with a straight demarcation line like I have been
seeing lately around here. The focal blur will conform to the round
shape of the lens.
This is YAGGI and the goof ball is excellent. Where is the Tee ?
#declare GolfTee =
union {
difference{
cylinder { y*4, y*6, 1}
sphere { y*8, 2.25}
torus { 1, 0.8 scale <1,2.25,1> translate y*4}}
cylinder { y*0.295, y*4.99, 0.2}
cone { 0, 0, y*0.95, 0.2}}
object {GolfTee translate y*-3.5
pigment{red 1}
finish {ambient 0.3 diffuse 0.35 phong 0.25}
normal {gradient x .5 scale<0.05,.5,0.05>}}
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Looks great!
On thing that would make it even better would be radiosity, so the ball
would take on a green hue and the shadow of the ball wouldn't be an uniform
green.
The render might take two weeks, but hey! ;)
Margus
Buke wrote in message <36C0D9EF.4854ECD8@iglou.com>...
>I made some wallpaper for the computer where I work and thought it was
>kinda neat . The grass is from the reeds_plugin.inc found on the
>binaries scene files and the golf ball is something I found a long time
>ago. I scanned our logo for the image_map. This took 15.5 hrs to render
>on my PII 450 (I'm making one for my wallpaper but this time I gave it
>to my 300
>to render I think it will take three days to finish. Line 190 after 21
>hrs
>going to 1280x1024). I like the one blade that threeds thru two of the
>dimples.
> Buke
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I think that I needed to pull the camera back and use more of a zoom
efect to get the round blur,but with this type of render time I gave up
after awhile. I was real close to the ball and I think that made the
line across it. I think part of the render time being so long might have
been for a typo I put the variance at 1/25601 I didn't see it before I
rendered. Maybe one of these days when I go on vacation I will try to
put radiosity in it ; )
Buke
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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!).
I typically use a "zoom" angle and large distance for the camera but in
the little bit I've used focal blur I haven't seen anything but the
straight horizontal focal point line. Seems closer and wider angle might
be more likely to do this in POV-Ray. But as I say, I don't let my
computer render more than a day if I can help it at all so I have yet to
see this sort of effect I guess.
Margus Ramst wrote:
>
> Looks great!
> On thing that would make it even better would be radiosity, so the ball
> would take on a green hue and the shadow of the ball wouldn't be an uniform
> green.
> The render might take two weeks, but hey! ;)
>
> Margus
>
> Buke wrote in message <36C0D9EF.4854ECD8@iglou.com>...
> >I made some wallpaper for the computer where I work and thought it was
> >kinda neat . The grass is from the reeds_plugin.inc found on the
> >binaries scene files and the golf ball is something I found a long time
> >ago. I scanned our logo for the image_map. This took 15.5 hrs to render
> >on my PII 450 (I'm making one for my wallpaper but this time I gave it
> >to my 300
> >to render I think it will take three days to finish. Line 190 after 21
> >hrs
> >going to 1280x1024). I like the one blade that threeds thru two of the
> >dimples.
> > Buke
--
omniVERSE: beyond the universe
http://members.aol.com/inversez/POVring.htm
mailto:inv### [at] aol com?PoV
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Buke wrote in message <36C2123F.803FE784@iglou.com>...
>
>Maybe one of these days when I go on vacation I will try to
>put radiosity in it ; )
> Buke
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
--
"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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] pilotmsuedu> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Marc Schimmler wrote:
> 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
Considering that u can network crays together to get even more powerful computers have
about 30 T90s
put together and see what you get..... (EG) it would more than likely take longer to
download a pic via
a T1 connection than rendering!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Psychomek wrote:
>
> Considering that u can network crays together to get even more powerful computers
have about 30 T90s
> put together and see what you get..... (EG) it would more than likely take longer to
download a pic via
> a T1 connection than rendering!
Our University and the Pittsburgh Supercomputer Center combined their
T3E's in '96. I would've liked to do the Povbench then!! ;-)
I remember that the current leader for parallel architecture for the
PovBench is a T3E.
Sigh ...
Marc
--
Marc Schimmler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I know I saw it. I was thinking of trying to upgrade it to 3.1. And
use the windows version of PVM. But that might too big of a projrct for
me. Is 3.1 code for DOS out?
Thomas Willhalm wrote:
>
> portelli <por### [at] pilotmsuedu> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yup. 3.1a is.
A newer version is just now going around on Compuserve, but I'm not sure about
DOS there.
portelli wrote:
> I know I saw it. I was thinking of trying to upgrade it to 3.1. And
> use the windows version of PVM. But that might too big of a projrct for
> me. Is 3.1 code for DOS out?
>
> Thomas Willhalm wrote:
> >
> > portelli <por### [at] pilotmsuedu> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
