Apache <apa### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:3dec0a34@news.povray.org...
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Time For Trace:   14 hours 12 minutes  27.0 seconds (50902 seconds)
>     Total Time:   14 hours  8 minutes  22.0 seconds (50902 seconds)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow that's a wierd time difference. Do you think you could extend that error,
and make it so a 14 hour trace only takes a few minutes? ;)

--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com

Post a reply to this message

I know exactly what you mean. But I think I'll leave the situation this
way....

Apache

Post a reply to this message

"Apache" <apa### [at] yahoocom> wrote in 
news:3dec0a34@news.povray.org

> Time For Trace:   14 hours 12 minutes  27.0 seconds (50902 seconds)
>     Total Time:   14 hours  8 minutes  22.0 seconds (50902 seconds)

How fast was Yours computer moving while rendering ;) ?

-- 
#macro g(U,V)(.4*abs(sin(9*sqrt(pow(x-U,2)+pow(y-V,2))))*pow(1-min(1,(sqrt(
pow(x-U,2)+pow(y-V,2))*.3)),2)+.9)#end#macro p(c)#if(c>1)#local l=mod(c,100
);g(2*div(l,10)-8,2*mod(l,10)-8)*p(div(c,100))#else 1#end#end light_source{
y 2}sphere{z*20 9pigment{function{p(26252423)*p(36455644)*p(66656463)}}}//M

Post a reply to this message

Rafal 'Raf256' Maj wrote:
>"Apache" <apa### [at] yahoocom> wrote in
>news:3dec0a34[at]news.povray.org
>
>> Time For Trace:   14 hours 12 minutes  27.0 seconds (50902 seconds)
>>     Total Time:   14 hours  8 minutes  22.0 seconds (50902 seconds)
>
>How fast was Yours computer moving while rendering ;) ?
>
I'm glad I'm not the only one getting weird time estimates. Until now I
assumed it was because there was something broken in my compile.
Now I know the true reason - I'm moving at 96.657463% of c!
For my next trick I will send a copy of a few other weird stats files
yesterday. ;-)

John
--

Run Fast
Run Free
Run Linux

Post a reply to this message

Yesterday? Are you getting negative values in POV-Ray because your speed > c
?


"Doctor John" <jgu### [at] netscapenet> wrote in message
news:web.3dee0f9aee99c354b29393de0@news.povray.org...
> Rafal 'Raf256' Maj wrote:
> >"Apache" <apa### [at] yahoocom> wrote in
> >news:3dec0a34[at]news.povray.org
> >
> >> Time For Trace:   14 hours 12 minutes  27.0 seconds (50902 seconds)
> >>     Total Time:   14 hours  8 minutes  22.0 seconds (50902 seconds)
> >
> >How fast was Yours computer moving while rendering ;) ?
> >
> I'm glad I'm not the only one getting weird time estimates. Until now I
> assumed it was because there was something broken in my compile.
> Now I know the true reason - I'm moving at 96.657463% of c!
> For my next trick I will send a copy of a few other weird stats files
> yesterday. ;-)
>
> John
> --
>
> Run Fast
> Run Free
> Run Linux
>

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John wrote:
> Rafal 'Raf256' Maj wrote:
> 
>>"Apache" <apa### [at] yahoocom> wrote in
>>news:3dec0a34[at]news.povray.org
>>
>>
>>>Time For Trace:   14 hours 12 minutes  27.0 seconds (50902 seconds)
>>>    Total Time:   14 hours  8 minutes  22.0 seconds (50902 seconds)
>>
>>How fast was Yours computer moving while rendering ;) ?
>>
> 
> I'm glad I'm not the only one getting weird time estimates. Until now I
> assumed it was because there was something broken in my compile.
> Now I know the true reason - I'm moving at 96.657463% of c!
> For my next trick I will send a copy of a few other weird stats files
> yesterday. ;-)
> 

I see the Time For Trace hours/minutes/seconds part offbase all the time.
The seconds listed in the parentheses will be correct. Here's an example
from rendering biscuit.pov (320x240 no AA):

Time For Trace:    0 hours 30 minutes  60.0 seconds (3 seconds)
     Total Time:    0 hours  0 minutes   3.0 seconds (3 seconds)

What I think it's been doing is calculating the trace time for the
hours/minutes/seconds part based on how long the POV-Ray render window
stays open. I know that sounds weird but testing seems to bear that
out. For the biscuit.pov times above, I started the render and left
the display window open, made a futile attempt to catch up on newgroups,
then returned to the display window and clicked on it to close it. So
you can see I spent about 30 minutes trying to comprehend the many
POV-Ray newsgroup postings.

This is with the Linux version btw, I have not tested the behavior on
any other platform.

I like Tek's suggestion though and we need to look into implementing
some sort of backwards timewarp so that my 15 hr renders only take
3 minutes ;)

-Roz

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 04 Dec 2002 09:22:18 -0500, Doctor John quoth:

> Rafal 'Raf256' Maj wrote:
>>"Apache" <apa### [at] yahoocom> wrote in
>>news:3dec0a34[at]news.povray.org
>>
>>> Time For Trace:   14 hours 12 minutes  27.0 seconds (50902 seconds)
>>>     Total Time:   14 hours  8 minutes  22.0 seconds (50902 seconds)
>>
>>How fast was Yours computer moving while rendering ;) ?
>>
> I'm glad I'm not the only one getting weird time estimates. Until now I
> assumed it was because there was something broken in my compile. Now I
> know the true reason - I'm moving at 96.657463% of c! For my next trick
> I will send a copy of a few other weird stats files yesterday. ;-)

This gives new meaning to the idea of "relativistic ray-tracing" ;-)

-- 
Mark

Post a reply to this message

I just read that thread and downloaded some cool animations after browsing
the net. Those animations and images were done with a POV-Ray hack.
Unfortunately no realistic shifting of colors though.


"Mark Wagner" <mar### [at] gtenet> wrote in message
news:pan### [at] gtenet...
> On Wed, 04 Dec 2002 09:22:18 -0500, Doctor John quoth:
>
> > Rafal 'Raf256' Maj wrote:
> >>"Apache" <apa### [at] yahoocom> wrote in
> >>news:3dec0a34[at]news.povray.org
> >>
> >>> Time For Trace:   14 hours 12 minutes  27.0 seconds (50902 seconds)
> >>>     Total Time:   14 hours  8 minutes  22.0 seconds (50902 seconds)
> >>
> >>How fast was Yours computer moving while rendering ;) ?
> >>
> > I'm glad I'm not the only one getting weird time estimates. Until now I
> > assumed it was because there was something broken in my compile. Now I
> > know the true reason - I'm moving at 96.657463% of c! For my next trick
> > I will send a copy of a few other weird stats files yesterday. ;-)
>
> This gives new meaning to the idea of "relativistic ray-tracing" ;-)
>
> --
> Mark

Post a reply to this message

Roz wrote:

>What I think it's been doing is calculating the trace time for the
>hours/minutes/seconds part based on how long the POV-Ray render window
>stays open.

Yup, after testing I'm going with your explanation.
Ah well, it was fun thinking about the possibilities.

John
--

Run Fast
Run Free
Run Linux

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John wrote:
> 
> Rafal 'Raf256' Maj wrote:
> >"Apache" <apa### [at] yahoocom> wrote in
> >news:3dec0a34[at]news.povray.org
> >
> >> Time For Trace:   14 hours 12 minutes  27.0 seconds (50902 seconds)
> >>     Total Time:   14 hours  8 minutes  22.0 seconds (50902 seconds)
> >
> >How fast was Yours computer moving while rendering ;) ?
> >
> I'm glad I'm not the only one getting weird time estimates. Until now I
> assumed it was because there was something broken in my compile.
> Now I know the true reason - I'm moving at 96.657463% of c!
> For my next trick I will send a copy of a few other weird stats files
> yesterday. ;-)
> 
> John
> --
> 
> Run Fast
> Run Free
> Run Linux

Run Fast
Run Free
Run Solaris

Post a reply to this message