Stop my 1600x1200 render, estimated to take a month to complete,
and redo it at 800x600, which would only take a week?

-- 
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

Pfeh, I'm killing it.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

Find a 2nd computer and start the 800x600 render there.

Post a reply to this message

Apache wrote:
> Find a 2nd computer and start the 800x600 render there.

Better yet, find a 2nd computer and start the 1600x1200 render
there so my main machine isn't tied up.  How fast is your computer?
;)

-- 
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

I've been tormenting my poor P3 866 by rendering more than one scene at the 
same time on occasion. I rendered my disp jitter sparklies and my signature 
all while my latest update to Balloon Trip rendered in the background. This 
may have lengthened all the renders but it works.

-- 
camera{location 2*y-.9rotate -z*9direction z/1.5look_at y}global_settings{
max_trace_level 99ambient_light 10}#macro G(V,E)pigment{V}finish{diffuse 0
ambient .1-E/10reflection{E metallic}}#end#macro O(N,T)plane{y,N G(T,0)
hollow}#end#macro C(A)sphere{0,A#end O(9,blue 1)O(-1,rgb 1)box{1+9*y,-y-1G(
rgb 1,.95)hollow}C(.99)G(rgb 1,1)}C(1)G(red 1,1)no_reflection}// Greg E

Post a reply to this message

I've been running a 3200x2400 version of my IRTC entry on my AMD Athlon
1800+ with 512MB running WinXP (whew!).  Last check, it's using about 800MB
of RAM, and is expected to take about 20 days.  However, if I set the render
priority to Lowest, I find that I am able to play games such as "Need for
Speed Hot Pursuit 2" and Quake3 without ANY noticeable loss in performance.
Sure, the render pretty much stops, but not completely.  Additionally, I can
run multiple versions of POV-Ray, and the foreground version seems to render
just fine.  If it seems too slow, I can always Pause the large render. The
only thing that really seems slow, are the times when it has to swap out the
memory, which aren't very often.

I've always believe that MS is evil (and still do *wink-wink*), but I really
like XP.  In fact, I even bought a copy for my wife's old Celeron 466 box.
I don't think I've had to reboot it once for a "blue screen" type issue
since I've had it installed (about 8 mos).  Perhaps I'm turning to the dark
side, or being assimilated, depending on your favorite sci-fi program...

--
Slash
"Timothy R. Cook" <z993126bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3e678a70$1@news.povray.org...
> Apache wrote:
> > Find a 2nd computer and start the 800x600 render there.
>
> Better yet, find a 2nd computer and start the 1600x1200 render
> there so my main machine isn't tied up.  How fast is your computer?
> ;)
>
> --
> Tim Cook
> http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean
>
> -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
> Version: 3.12
> GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
> N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
> PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
> D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
> ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
>

Post a reply to this message

Had to reboot XP due to a number of blue screens now... (The first one was
11.9 seconds after the very first time I ever turned on the laptop, which
was a gift... "hmmm" was what I believe I said at the time...) I prefer
WinNT myself - seems much more reliable. But hey, I've got XP here, so I'm
not paying to change it...

On a more PR-themed note... I firmly believe that it's impossible to have
enough processing power to do what you want to do with something like a
raytracer (or fractal generator btw). Of course, a good optimisation goes a
long way ;-)

Andrew.

PS. Win2k looks like it's evil. Shame that's what I'm gonna be using at
work...

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 6 Mar 2003 21:31:50 -0000, Andrew Coppin wrote:

> Had to reboot XP due to a number of blue screens now... (The first one was
> 11.9 seconds after the very first time I ever turned on the laptop, which
> was a gift... "hmmm" was what I believe I said at the time...) I prefer
> WinNT myself - seems much more reliable. But hey, I've got XP here, so I'm
> not paying to change it...
> 
> On a more PR-themed note... I firmly believe that it's impossible to have
> enough processing power to do what you want to do with something like a
> raytracer (or fractal generator btw). Of course, a good optimisation goes a
> long way ;-)
> 
> Andrew.
> 
> PS. Win2k looks like it's evil. Shame that's what I'm gonna be using at
> work...

Win NT 4? *shudder*... I think XP is the best of the Windowses right now 
(if that's a real word). I've always thought of 2000 as XP without the 
pretty interface. And BTW, the only time I've ever gotten a BSOD on XP was 
when I overclocked my vid card too much. Of course, we wouldn't have this 
problem if video card companies smartened up and started making RTRT cards 
instead! ;-)

-- 
camera{location 2*y-.9rotate -z*9direction z/1.5look_at y}global_settings{
max_trace_level 99ambient_light 10}#macro G(V,E)pigment{V}finish{diffuse 0
ambient .1-E/10reflection{E metallic}}#end#macro O(N,T)plane{y,N G(T,0)
hollow}#end#macro C(A)sphere{0,A#end O(9,blue 1)O(-1,rgb 1)box{1+9*y,-y-1G(
rgb 1,.95)hollow}C(.99)G(rgb 1,1)}C(1)G(red 1,1)no_reflection}// Greg E

Post a reply to this message

Timothy R. Cook wrote:
> Pfeh, I'm killing it.

LOL


--
Rick

Kitty5 NewMedia http://Kitty5.co.uk
POV-Ray News & Resources http://Povray.co.uk
TEL : +44 (01270) 501101 - FAX : +44 (01270) 251105 - ICQ : 15776037

PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA

Post a reply to this message

no.... you should buy a new dual Athlon MP computer
a gig of pc3500 RAM and WinXP....

And have it done within the day

Alex

"Timothy R. Cook" <z993126bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3e6786fd$1@news.povray.org...
| Stop my 1600x1200 render, estimated to take a month to complete,
| and redo it at 800x600, which would only take a week?
| 
| -- 
| Tim Cook
| http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean
| 
| -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
| Version: 3.12
| GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
| N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
| PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
| D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
| ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
|

Post a reply to this message

AArDvarK wrote:
> no.... you should buy a new dual Athlon MP computer
> a gig of pc3500 RAM and WinXP....
> 
> And have it done within the day

Dubious.  To have it done within the day (I assume you're referring
to the 800x600 version), the computer would have to be 6 times as fast
as this one.  That's 10.8 GHz.  They don't have those publicly
available yet in single processors.

Besides, I'd like to go for one of those new Intel processors that
can do multithreading, and have POV run on one thread and still be
able to use the computer...

-- 
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

The athlon MP means 'multiple processor' 
and they are designed to work in winXp... 
It is a much better designed chip with it's 
FPU and cashe system. Far mor efficient. 

1600 x 1200 at what PPI? 300? 

Alex 


"Timothy R. Cook" <z993126bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3e68328d@news.povray.org...
| AArDvarK wrote:
| > no.... you should buy a new dual Athlon MP computer
| > a gig of pc3500 RAM and WinXP....
| > 
| > And have it done within the day
| 
| Dubious.  To have it done within the day (I assume you're referring
| to the 800x600 version), the computer would have to be 6 times as fast
| as this one.  That's 10.8 GHz.  They don't have those publicly
| available yet in single processors.
| 
| Besides, I'd like to go for one of those new Intel processors that
| can do multithreading, and have POV run on one thread and still be
| able to use the computer...
| 
| -- 
| Tim Cook
| http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean
| 
| -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
| Version: 3.12
| GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
| N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
| PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
| D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
| ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
|

Post a reply to this message

AArDvarK wrote:
> The athlon MP means 'multiple processor' 
> and they are designed to work in winXp... 
> It is a much better designed chip with it's 
> FPU and cashe system. Far mor efficient. 

'Much better designed' is a qualitative assessment that
unless you had a hand in designing BOTH chips cannot be
given.  As far as efficiency...I would have to see some
benchmarks.

> 1600 x 1200 at what PPI? 300? 

1600x1200 total pixels.  You can make it however
many inches you want.  It's my screen resolution.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

AArDvarK wrote:
> The athlon MP means 'multiple processor' 
> and they are designed to work in winXp... 
> It is a much better designed chip with it's 
> FPU and cashe system. Far mor efficient. 

<'Much better designed' is a qualitative assessment that
<unless you had a hand in designing BOTH chips cannot be
<given.  As far as efficiency...I would have to see some
<benchmarks. 

http://www.tomshardware.com/ 
Any PIII or P4 can be 'dualed' on a mainboard, 
it's the software that must be multi-threaded, 
including the OS.

> 1600 x 1200 at what PPI? 300? 

<1600x1200 total pixels.  You can make it however
<many inches you want.  It's my screen resolution.

It's not the inches, it's the pixels-per-inch, which
is true resolution. Dimensions are not true reso-
lution but it has to do with it. You could have an 
image @ 1600x1200x300ppi or 1600x1200x72
ppi...

I just rendered Steve Pigon's 'information rods'
.POV set, 72ppi @ 800x600 AA 0.3 and it took
over one hour on my PIII 933/512pc133 old box. 
So that is why I asked in the first place...

no offence...

What is your CPU and RAM?

Alex

Post a reply to this message

"Timothy R. Cook" <z993126bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3e68328d@news.povray.org...
...
> Besides, I'd like to go for one of those new Intel processors that
> can do multithreading, and have POV run on one thread and still be
> able to use the computer...
...

Again, I'm not sure why you can't use your computer while it's rendering
something huge for a week.  Like I said, my system has allocated about 900MB
of RAM, and the system only has 512MB, with a single Athlon XP, and I can
still run Quake3 and NFS-HP2 largely without any noticeable loss in
performance.  Those games take quite a toll on the system, too.
Additionally, I can run however many different POV-Ray renders I want,
simultaneously, and the one in the foreground seems little affected by the
one in the background.

--
Slash

Post a reply to this message

Slashdolt wrote:
> Again, I'm not sure why you can't use your computer while it's rendering
> something huge for a week.

Well, I can, but I can't do other intensive tasks like burning CDs or
playing online games where the amount of lag introduced by a program
using as much of the processor as it can get is unacceptable.

And burning CDs and raytracing at the same time is NOT practical,
even if you can burn a CD and run 50 other non-raytracing programs
at the same time.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

AArDvarK wrote:
> It's not the inches, it's the pixels-per-inch, which
> is true resolution. Dimensions are not true reso-
> lution but it has to do with it. You could have an 
> image @ 1600x1200x300ppi or 1600x1200x72
> ppi...

But the end image is still 1600x1200 pixels...I have
no idea what POV's native PPI is, or if it even cares
about such a thing.

> What is your CPU and RAM?

1.8 GHz P4, 512 MB DDR

-- 
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

Sorry if I'm starting to sound argumentative, but if you set the Render
priority to "Lowest", you should be able to play just about any game that
you want.  The worst that should happen is some initial swapping of RAM to
HD, or vice-versa.

I burned 2 CD's last weekend while my render was going, but I did pause the
render first.  I'm not sure what you mean about it not being practical.
I've never run POV-Ray on anything but WinXP, so maybe it's my OS that's
being so nice.  I guess I really don't know.

My render has been running for about 7 days now, and only about 1/3 of the
picture is done. :-/

--
Slash
"Timothy R. Cook" <z993126bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3e68ab74@news.povray.org...
> Slashdolt wrote:
> > Again, I'm not sure why you can't use your computer while it's rendering
> > something huge for a week.
>
> Well, I can, but I can't do other intensive tasks like burning CDs or
> playing online games where the amount of lag introduced by a program
> using as much of the processor as it can get is unacceptable.
>
> And burning CDs and raytracing at the same time is NOT practical,
> even if you can burn a CD and run 50 other non-raytracing programs
> at the same time.
>
> --
> Tim Cook
> http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean
>
> -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
> Version: 3.12
> GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
> N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
> PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
> D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
> ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
>

Post a reply to this message

Slashdolt wrote:
> Sorry if I'm starting to sound argumentative, but if you set the Render
> priority to "Lowest", you should be able to play just about any game that
> you want.  The worst that should happen is some initial swapping of RAM to
> HD, or vice-versa.

The game I'm talking about is Terminus, a space sim...which, although I
can play it while running a render, I certainly won't attempt to be
around when the Corsairs are flying...of course, it doesn't matter if
I'm running a render or not, I'll avoid those bastards...Newtonian
physics is a harsh mistress, and their simulated reflexes are ungodly.

My only concern is that I tried playing Thief 2, it gagged and I had
to reboot the computer, and was unable to resume my render I'd been
doing...I don't want that to happen on a week+ render.

> I burned 2 CD's last weekend while my render was going, but I did pause the
> render first.  I'm not sure what you mean about it not being practical.

Hmm...I COULD pause the render, I suppose, but...really my CD burning
can wait a few days for my render to finish ;)

> My render has been running for about 7 days now, and only about 1/3 of the
> picture is done. :-/

ick

-- 
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message