 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Great, Slime!
> Here's 1280 x 960
> DLM
Thank you !
--
Dark Skull Software
http://www.darkskull.net
A+
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
MOST impressive...
You know that "challenge" I "posted" in off-topic? I think you just won
it! ;-)
Now how come when I fiddle with POV-Ray I never accidentally produce
something this cool? Heh. Maybe I don't fiddle for long enough... LOL!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:07:10 -0600, Jim Henderson wrote:
> And it renders fairly quickly - with no AA on my lowly P-III laptop, it
> took about 30 minutes at 1400x1050.
Of course, *with* AA it takes just *slightly* longer to render. ;-)
Now it's running on a Dual Processor HT 2.4 GHz Xeon system (wish there
was a beta of 3.7 for Linux), and after almost 85 hours, it's on line 240
out of 1050. This was with AA set to a threshold of 0.1, depth 9, and
jitter 1.0.
It looks very good so far.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Of course, *with* AA it takes just *slightly* longer to render. ;-)
Yep.
> Now it's running on a Dual Processor HT 2.4 GHz Xeon system (wish there
> was a beta of 3.7 for Linux), and after almost 85 hours, it's on line 240
> out of 1050. This was with AA set to a threshold of 0.1, depth 9, and
> jitter 1.0.
Depth 9? :-0
> It looks very good so far.
Uh... yeah, I *bet* it does!
(I've never tried a depth of more than 5 myself... OTOH, never tried
different depths to compare the result either!)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:50:16 +0100, Emerald Orchid wrote:
>> Of course, *with* AA it takes just *slightly* longer to render. ;-)
>
> Yep.
>
>> Now it's running on a Dual Processor HT 2.4 GHz Xeon system (wish there
>> was a beta of 3.7 for Linux), and after almost 85 hours, it's on line
>> 240 out of 1050. This was with AA set to a threshold of 0.1, depth 9,
>> and jitter 1.0.
>
> Depth 9? :-0
Yeah, I normally don't use anything beyond depth 5 myself, but I thought
I'd see what this "new-to-me" machine could do. :-)
>> It looks very good so far.
>
> Uh... yeah, I *bet* it does!
I'll put a copy of it somewhere where it can be pulled if anyone's
interested - when it's done (should be another week or so at this rate <G>)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I thought some might be interested in knowing that this render *finally*
finished (last night around 11 PM local time). I actually stopped and
restarted a couple of times (system upgrades, actually), but only had
about 3 hours downtime between the start and the end.
The final hour count was 3153 hours (render time of 131 days 9 hours). I
did try to run it at the highest processor priority (nice level -19) most
of the time, but didn't run it that way continuously.
I'm now rerunning at a depth of 3; after 15 minutes, it's about a quarter
of the way finished. I'm going to be interested to see if the differences
are visible at all...
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 15:10:52 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com>
wrote:
> I thought some might be interested in knowing that this render *finally*
> finished (last night around 11 PM local time). I actually stopped and
> restarted a couple of times (system upgrades, actually), but only had
> about 3 hours downtime between the start and the end.
>
> The final hour count was 3153 hours (render time of 131 days 9 hours). I
> did try to run it at the highest processor priority (nice level -19) most
> of the time, but didn't run it that way continuously.
>
> I'm now rerunning at a depth of 3; after 15 minutes, it's about a quarter
> of the way finished. I'm going to be interested to see if the
> differences
> are visible at all...
>
> Jim
How can you say this AND NOT POST THE IMAGE!?!?!
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 15:57:32 -0400, Tyler Eaves wrote:
> How can you say this AND NOT POST THE IMAGE!?!?!
Sorry, meant to include a link - I've had problems posting images here
using Mozilla in the past. :-)
http://hendersj.dyndns.org/short/blueblob-9x9.html is the ray depth 9
image. The other is still going, about 90% complete. I'll add it to the
parent album when it's completed, but so far, it's looking identical to
the other. I'm going to do a binary diff on it to see if there's any real
difference.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:33:21 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 15:57:32 -0400, Tyler Eaves wrote:
>
>> How can you say this AND NOT POST THE IMAGE!?!?!
>
> Sorry, meant to include a link - I've had problems posting images here
> using Mozilla in the past. :-)
>
VERY cool! The full size version is my new background. But 3000
hours....yeesh. Were you rendering on a 486 or something?
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:53:50 -0400, Tyler Eaves wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:33:21 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
> wrote:
>
>> [quoted text muted]
> VERY cool! The full size version is my new background. But 3000
> hours....yeesh. Were you rendering on a 486 or something?
Dual Xeon, 2.4 GHz per processor. +R9 is what made it take so long
(that's the AA depth, and is the maximum value). The +R3 version finished
after a little over 6 hours.
Visibly, there's not much difference.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
