Warp wrote:
>   The image looks very good.
>   However, there's something strange there. I think that you clearly
wanted
> to make glass torii. However, for some reason they look like made of
plastic
> instead.
>   What is their ior? Also perhaps the highlights should be sharper.

Yes I haven't played with the highlights yet, so I left them fairly dull
(more like some kind of plastic).  The IOR is 1.15, so the highlights should
be much tighter.

Lance.

thezone.firewave.com.au
www.firewave.com.au

Post a reply to this message

"Lance Birch" <-> wrote in message news:3bdcc5f5@news.povray.org...
> I'm not sure, with RC5 running I can get both processors doing 100% (if not
> with a little bit or kernel action here and there).  I'll have to
> investigate it further.  AFAIK POV-Ray is single-threaded as well, but even
> still, setting it to the highest thread priority should get it using 100% of
> one processor.  I'll have to try manually setting it in the task manager on
> pvengine.

Incidentally, if you download beta.7 (available in the next 24 hours), you will
find that on NT it prints a summary of actual kernel+user time after each render.

I added this to allow for more accurate benchmarking, regardless of what other
processes are running on the machine (in the process of which I discovered that,
for some reason, NT doesn't seem to include time spent updating graphics or the
UI in either time count, which to an extent suits me, though I wasn't expecting
it).

-- Chris

Post a reply to this message

Chris Cason wrote:
>
> "Lance Birch" <-> wrote in message news:3bdcc5f5@news.povray.org...
> > I'm not sure, with RC5 running I can get both processors doing 100% (if
not
> > with a little bit or kernel action here and there).  I'll have to
> > investigate it further.  AFAIK POV-Ray is single-threaded as well, but
even
> > still, setting it to the highest thread priority should get it using
100% of
> > one processor.  I'll have to try manually setting it in the task manager
on
> > pvengine.
>
> Incidentally, if you download beta.7 (available in the next 24 hours), you
will
> find that on NT it prints a summary of actual kernel+user time after each
render.
>
> I added this to allow for more accurate benchmarking, regardless of what
other
> processes are running on the machine (in the process of which I discovered
that,
> for some reason, NT doesn't seem to include time spent updating graphics
or the
> UI in either time count, which to an extent suits me, though I wasn't
expecting
> it).

Thanks Chris, this'll be an interesting thing to watch.  I've been
monitoring the way it's prioritised across both processors and it seems to
get the equivalent of 100% of one processor (regardless of the assigned
affinity), which is good :)

Lance.

thezone.firewave.com.au
www.firewave.com.au

Post a reply to this message

Nice image. Can you share the photons and radiosity parameters with us?

Ruy

Post a reply to this message

Lance Birch <-> wrote:
: The IOR is 1.15

  That explains a lot. They just didn't have that glass-refraction look.

  The IOR for glass is 1.5, and for water it's 1.33. So what you have modelled
are torii made of some gas which is a bit denser than air. In fact, those
torii couldn't exist in the real world (a material of that density would just
vaporize as any gas). No wonder why they looked odd... :P

-- 
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}//                     - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Lance Birch <-> wrote:
> : The IOR is 1.15
>
>   That explains a lot. They just didn't have that glass-refraction look.
>
>   The IOR for glass is 1.5, and for water it's 1.33. So what you have
modelled
> are torii made of some gas which is a bit denser than air. In fact, those
> torii couldn't exist in the real world (a material of that density would
just
> vaporize as any gas). No wonder why they looked odd... :P

Yes I know all the values for different materials... I was more just going
for artistic mertic ;)

Lance.

thezone.firewave.com.au
www.firewave.com.au

Post a reply to this message

Ruy wrote:
> Nice image. Can you share the photons and radiosity parameters with us?

I started with the standard radiosity settings from the Insert menu and work
my way along.  The photons are fairly self explanatory.  I don't think the
radiosity has too much effect in the image, except with the grey sky sphere
I put in for the sky.  The ambient light does a lot of the work too.

global_settings {
  radiosity {
    pretrace_start 0.08
    pretrace_end 0.04
    error_bound 1.8
    recursion_limit 3
    low_error_factor .5
    gray_threshold 0.0
    minimum_reuse 0.015
    brightness 1
    adc_bailout 0.01/2
    normal on
    count 1600
    nearest_count 7
  }
  photons {
     count 6000000
     autostop 0
     jitter 1
  }
  ambient_light rgb <2,0.25,0>
}

Lance.

thezone.firewave.com.au
www.firewave.com.au

Post a reply to this message

AFAIK POV 3.5 radiosity looks much better with ambient set to 0 (except the
sky of course).
The motto is: "let radiosity do it!"

--
Jonathan.

"Lance Birch" <-> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3bddd44a@news.povray.org...
> Ruy wrote:
> > Nice image. Can you share the photons and radiosity parameters with us?
>
> I started with the standard radiosity settings from the Insert menu and
work
> my way along.  The photons are fairly self explanatory.  I don't think the
> radiosity has too much effect in the image, except with the grey sky
sphere
> I put in for the sky.  The ambient light does a lot of the work too.
>
> global_settings {
>   radiosity {
>     pretrace_start 0.08
>     pretrace_end 0.04
>     error_bound 1.8
>     recursion_limit 3
>     low_error_factor .5
>     gray_threshold 0.0
>     minimum_reuse 0.015
>     brightness 1
>     adc_bailout 0.01/2
>     normal on
>     count 1600
>     nearest_count 7
>   }
>   photons {
>      count 6000000
>      autostop 0
>      jitter 1
>   }
>   ambient_light rgb <2,0.25,0>
> }
>
> Lance.
>
> thezone.firewave.com.au
> www.firewave.com.au
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Chris Cason wrote:

> 
> Incidentally, if you download beta.7 (available in the next 24 hours),


Wow!  What would be the odds of getting both Netscape 6.2 and POV 3.5.b7 
on the same day!!!

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   videotron.ca  */}camera{location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a orthographic}

Post a reply to this message

"JRG" <jrg### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:3bddd832$1@news.povray.org...
> AFAIK POV 3.5 radiosity looks much better with ambient set to 0 (except
the
> sky of course).
> The motto is: "let radiosity do it!"

Yes but I always love maxing out colours to get better contrast :)

Lance.

thezone.firewave.com.au
www.firewave.com.au

Post a reply to this message