 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Check the "Time For Trace" and "Total Time"....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pixels: 199252 Samples: 372532 Smpls/Pxl: 1.87
Rays: 493256231 Saved: 26430133 Max Level: 10/10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ray->Shape Intersection Tests Succeeded Percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSG Intersection 140936196 85762527 60.85
CSG Merge 61704519 41928500 67.95
Disc 1 0 0.00
Plane 1794233192 895287755 49.90
Sphere 281872392 131936536 46.81
Bounding Box 2922843051 162489824 5.56
Light Buffer 42097404 27094587 64.36
Vista Buffer 2672734 2164786 81.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calls to Noise: 47930245 Calls to DNoise: 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shadow Ray Tests: 447038096 Succeeded: 21510769
Reflected Rays: 29856129 Total Internal: 122
Refracted Rays: 29856007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radiosity samples calculated: 548493 (0.27 percent)
Radiosity samples reused: 206414746
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smallest Alloc: 25 bytes Largest: 100848
Peak memory used: 109479381 bytes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time For Trace: 14 hours 12 minutes 27.0 seconds (50902 seconds)
Total Time: 14 hours 8 minutes 22.0 seconds (50902 seconds)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPU time used: kernel 106.92 seconds, user 41182.29 seconds, total 41289.21
seconds
Render averaged 4.45 PPS over 183750 pixels
POV-Ray finished
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'bubble03test_525x350.jpg' (26 KB)
Preview of image 'bubble03test_525x350.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I am aware you didn't ask for suggestions... but anyway... I liked very much
the radiosity-ness of the render, however, there's something strange with
the apearance of the bubbles... I think they look not glossy enough and I
get the impression that they are not hollow. You know what I mean?
The iridiscence looks awesome, I think.
Fernando.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Apache <apa### [at] yahoo com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
