 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bonsai wrote:
> ... but I was interested in the inner structures. Took my machine 2 days to
> render at 800x600. I think I have to work on the code...
There was a thread about this some time (years ?) ago. If I remember well, a
solution for optimising the sponge was to run only a small part of it (a 1/8 or
1/81, for instance), and then to replicate the part as needed. The decrease in
parsing and render time was dramatic.
Hope this helps.
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
Graphic experiments
Pov-ray gallery
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bonsai wrote:
> Maybe this is a good scene to test the distribute render techniques
> currently discussed in povray.general in the large-render-thread. Parsing
> time is very short compared to render time (parsing time about 30 seconds,
> render time 2 days)
What computer (how fast) was used to render such picture? Which
algorithm was used? I managed to render menger with same recursion level
and 800x600 (AA0.3) just little over 12 minutes when isosurface was used
(this was when shader was used for calculation, for as it seems, shader
will outperform user's iso functions).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapg inrafr> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3AA8FD35.60727F15@inapg.inra.fr...
> Bonsai wrote:
>
> > ... but I was interested in the inner structures. Took my machine 2 days
to
> > render at 800x600. I think I have to work on the code...
>
> There was a thread about this some time (years ?) ago. If I remember well,
a
> solution for optimising the sponge was to run only a small part of it (a
1/8 or
> 1/81, for instance), and then to replicate the part as needed. The
decrease in
> parsing and render time was dramatic.
> Hope this helps.
Yes it did in parts. For the creation of a mengersponge that does not
interact with any other object it is a big increase (now it takes some
minutes to render one at 800x600 with the same complexicity...)
But when I want to do the cut away with a sphere it goes back to the 1 or 2
come home and feed my little Athlon with new stuff...
so long and thanks allot,
Bonsai
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Vahur Krouverk" <vah### [at] aetecee> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3AA90733.A7C66D85@aetec.ee...
> Bonsai wrote:
> > Maybe this is a good scene to test the distribute render techniques
> > currently discussed in povray.general in the large-render-thread.
Parsing
> > time is very short compared to render time (parsing time about 30
seconds,
> > render time 2 days)
>
> What computer (how fast) was used to render such picture? Which
> algorithm was used? I managed to render menger with same recursion level
> and 800x600 (AA0.3) just little over 12 minutes when isosurface was used
> (this was when shader was used for calculation, for as it seems, shader
> will outperform user's iso functions).
I wanted to do the sponge in pure csg. So I did a lot of differences, that
resulted in this long rendertime.
Gilles gave me a tricky hint on doing the mengersponge very easy and fast.
My old code is just wasting of electric power and time. :-(
But now I know that my new Athlon works stable even for days...
Bonsai
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bonsai wrote:
> But when I want to do the cut away with a sphere it goes back to the 1 or 2
What about cutting away the (correctly positioned) individual parts first ? It
should render faster than making the union first and cutting the union after.
One fun thing would be to make the sponge out of triangles... I would render
very quickly I guess.
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
Graphic experiments
Pov-ray gallery
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran schrieb:
>
> What about cutting away the (correctly positioned) individual parts first ? It
> should render faster than making the union first and cutting the union after.
> One fun thing would be to make the sponge out of triangles... I would render
> very quickly I guess.
with them. But I want to do some csg-ing with this little sponge thing after I
can create it fast enough.
Thanks for the hints again,
Bonsai
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bonsai wrote:
>
> I wanted to do the sponge in pure csg. So I did a lot of differences, that
> resulted in this long rendertime.
>
Why differences? You should get *much* faster rendering if you created the
sponge as an union, i.e. stack a lot of little blocks to make up the sponge
structure, instead of progressively cutting holes out of one big block.
--
Margus Ramst
Personal e-mail: mar### [at] peakeduee
TAG (Team Assistance Group) e-mail: mar### [at] tagpovrayorg
Home page http://www.hot.ee/margusrt
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3aa8d2db@news.povray.org>, "Bonsai" <bon### [at] b0n541net>
wrote:
> I never wanted to let it look like cheese. I use the yellow color
> only for modelling and testing a new object or shape, because for me
It was supposed to be a joke...I just forgot the smiley. But I do think
the smaller piece would look at home on a mouse trap...
--
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3AA8E44A.6218AF06@stress.uio.no>, Simen Kvaal
<sim### [at] stressuiono> wrote:
> Consider rendering a compact subset of R^3 (that is closed and
> bounded) which has zero volume but infinite surface area. Thus, it
> will require infinitely many recursion levels to trace one single ray
> accurately through it.
Of course, I meant an *approximation* of a Menger sponge...rendering a
real one would literally take forever, and probably not be that
interesting.
> And it would definetely not be transparent, or even semitransparent.
>
> Thus, better and better approximations would tend to a more and more
> opaque object which take longer and longer to render. I'd say; skip
> the transparency. :)
Um, with better approximations, the volume the ray passes through will
decrease, and the sponge will become more and more *transparent*. You
will get a fainter and fainter image of the sponge, until it is
invisible. But as I said above, I'm only interested in an approximation,
maybe 3-5 levels...a real sponge would be impossible.
--
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
> Um, with better approximations, the volume the ray passes through will
> decrease, and the sponge will become more and more *transparent*. You
> will get a fainter and fainter image of the sponge, until it is
> invisible. But as I said above, I'm only interested in an approximation,
> maybe 3-5 levels...a real sponge would be impossible.
>
Interesting thought!
I think you're right; it should be invisible.
:)
~simenkv.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
