 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nice iso
here the formular:
2*(x*x*pow((3-4*x*x),2)+y*y*pow((3-4*y*y),2)+z*z*pow((3-4*z*z),2))-3
contained_by{box{-1.2,1.2}}
threshold -.2
rendered with cm-pov
H.Karsten
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'iso.prev.jpg' (17 KB)
Preview of image 'iso.prev.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nice one, I love this render :-)
> nice iso
> here the formular:
> 2*(x*x*pow((3-4*x*x),2)+y*y*pow((3-4*y*y),2)+z*z*pow((3-4*z*z),2))-3
> contained_by{box{-1.2,1.2}}
> threshold -.2
>
> rendered with cm-pov
>
> H.Karsten
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> nice iso
> here the formular:
> 2*(x*x*pow((3-4*x*x),2)+y*y*pow((3-4*y*y),2)+z*z*pow((3-4*z*z),2))-3
> contained_by{box{-1.2,1.2}}
> threshold -.2
>
> rendered with cm-pov
>
> H.Karsten
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Nice little box.
I remenber a tread where it was said that "pow(x,2)" is faster than
"x*x". It may only be due to the fact that the variable is evaluated
only once, but it seems to be faster.
So, if you rewrite:
2*(x*x*pow((3-4*x*x),2)+y*y*pow((3-4*y*y),2)+z*z*pow((3-4*z*z),2))-3
As:
2*(pow(x,2)*pow((3-4*pow(x,2),2)+pow(y,2)*pow((3-4*pow(y,2),2)+pow(z,2)*pow((3-4*pow(z,2),2)-3
You should get a performance improvement.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cool, I very much like it.
Though I have apparently missed what cm-pov is and could not turn it up in a
quick search ?
Bill
"H. Karsten" <h-karsten()web.de> wrote:
> nice iso
> here the formular:
> 2*(x*x*pow((3-4*x*x),2)+y*y*pow((3-4*y*y),2)+z*z*pow((3-4*z*z),2))-3
> contained_by{box{-1.2,1.2}}
> threshold -.2
>
> rendered with cm-pov
>
> H.Karsten
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"William Pokorny" <pokorny_epix_net> wrote:
> Cool, I very much like it.
>
> Though I have apparently missed what cm-pov is and could not turn it up in a
> quick search ?
it's a typo for mc-pov, an unbiased extension to povray:
http://pagesperso-orange.fr/fidos/MCPov/MCPov.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain schrieb:
> I remenber a tread where it was said that "pow(x,2)" is faster than
> "x*x". It may only be due to the fact that the variable is evaluated
> only once, but it seems to be faster.
That may well be indeed. I never thought about it, but it seems
plausible, as each reference to a variable requires a hashtable lookup,
as well as checking whether the value is indeed a scalar value. With
SSE2, a pow() computation may be able to beat that overhead.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain wrote:
>> nice iso
>> here the formular:
>> 2*(x*x*pow((3-4*x*x),2)+y*y*pow((3-4*y*y),2)+z*z*pow((3-4*z*z),2))-3
>> contained_by{box{-1.2,1.2}}
>> threshold -.2
>>
>> rendered with cm-pov
>>
>> H.Karsten
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>>
> Nice little box.
>
> I remenber a tread where it was said that "pow(x,2)" is faster than
> "x*x". It may only be due to the fact that the variable is evaluated
> only once, but it seems to be faster.
>
> So, if you rewrite:
> 2*(x*x*pow((3-4*x*x),2)+y*y*pow((3-4*y*y),2)+z*z*pow((3-4*z*z),2))-3
>
> As:
> 2*(pow(x,2)*pow((3-4*pow(x,2),2)+pow(y,2)*pow((3-4*pow(y,2),2)+pow(z,2)
*pow((3-4*pow(z,2),2)-3
>
>
> You should get a performance improvement.
>
Plus, you can factor it some more and save three calls to pow:
2*(pow(x*(3-4*pow(x,2)),2)+pow(y*(3-4*pow(y,2)),2)+pow(z*(3-4*pow(z,2)),2
))-3
Jerome
--
mailto:jeb### [at] free fr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeb### [at] jabberfr
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (1 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
