 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas Lake wrote:
> LightBeam wrote:
>> Comments welcome. No more work on it for me...
>> enjoy ;-)
>
> Wow! I love this kind of stuff!
The only other comment I have is about Thunderbird, how come they still
don't implement threading properly after all this time!!! Inexcusable!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hey!
No photographs allowed in this forum!
LightBeam <s.f### [at] tiscali fr> wrote:
> Comments welcome. No more work on it for me...
> enjoy ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v2 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Interesting. I like it.
>
> (Nice touch adding the fettling line to the ball.)
A new word for me: "fettling." I had to look it up.
And I agree. Nice touch, nice picture!
Dave Matthews
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas Lake wrote:
> Thomas Lake wrote:
>
>> LightBeam wrote:
>>
>>> Comments welcome. No more work on it for me...
>>> enjoy ;-)
>>
>>
>> Wow! I love this kind of stuff!
>
>
> The only other comment I have is about Thunderbird, how come they still
> don't implement threading properly after all this time!!! Inexcusable!
Works for me, you must have threading deselected.
Go to: View->Threads and there are several options. Mine is set for
"all".
-=- Larry -=-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Larry Hudson wrote:
> Works for me, you must have threading deselected.
> Go to: View->Threads and there are several options. Mine is set for
> "all".
No the threads are displayed correctly but Thunderbird doesn't implement
thread ID based threading. It sorts threads by their subject title
instead. Therefore if you make a post with the same name as a previous
post Thunderbird will show it as a reply to the previous post of the
same name instead of as a new Thread like it should. The thread we are
in now is from 2000 originally and Thunderbird keeps tacking on each
subsequent post with the title 'Abstract' to that original thread.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Thomas Lake wrote:
> Larry Hudson wrote:
>> Works for me, you must have threading deselected.
>> Go to: View->Threads and there are several options. Mine is set
>> for "all".
>
> No the threads are displayed correctly but Thunderbird doesn't implement
> thread ID based threading. It sorts threads by their subject title
> instead. Therefore if you make a post with the same name as a previous
> post Thunderbird will show it as a reply to the previous post of the
> same name instead of as a new Thread like it should. The thread we are
> in now is from 2000 originally and Thunderbird keeps tacking on each
> subsequent post with the title 'Abstract' to that original thread.
Actually, they do implement thread ID based threading: if you reply
to a post and change the subject, it will still be shown in the
right thread. However, they also implement a workaround for other
newsreaders that don't set thread ID. All that's lacking is a way to
turn that #*!@ feature OFF!
Jerome
- --
+------------------------- Jerome M. BERGER ---------------------+
| mailto:jeb### [at] freefr | ICQ: 238062172 |
| http://jeberger.free.fr/ | Jabber: jeb### [at] jabberfr |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------+
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEja2ud0kWM4JG3k8RAn/gAJ4gmzL2SvHT/TkfDCGvwmcWcXWobQCeMoNU
fM1m7vlSowBoPegwSnsQnfY=
=Mt+K
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
LightBeam <s.f### [at] tiscalifr> wrote:
> Comments welcome. No more work on it for me...
> enjoy ;-)
Simply gorgeous.
Whenever I see such a beautiful, photorealistic image as this, the very
first thought that pops into my mind is: How many *days* would my poor
little Pentium II box be chugging away on such an image?! That irritating
bit of reality always keeps me from attempting such scenes. :-(
What was the total render time?
Ken W.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> LightBeam <s.f### [at] tiscalifr> wrote:
>> Comments welcome. No more work on it for me...
>> enjoy ;-)
>
> Simply gorgeous.
>
> Whenever I see such a beautiful, photorealistic image as this, the very
> first thought that pops into my mind is: How many *days* would my poor
> little Pentium II box be chugging away on such an image?! That irritating
> bit of reality always keeps me from attempting such scenes. :-(
>
> What was the total render time?
>
> Ken W.
It tooks approx. 1h40 to render on my AMD64 4400+ (one single processor
used)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fantastic pic - love it !!!
Any chance you could post the source?
Adrian
(www.squaretomato.co.uk/povray)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
LightBeam <s.f### [at] tiscalifr> wrote:
> Comments welcome. No more work on it for me...
> enjoy ;-)
Stunning picture - I love it. Wish I had noticed it several months ago!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
