Well, here it is. This is what I left rendering last night. I fear for my
hard drive. The poor thing thrashed for hours. I don't know how Mick can do
it. I will never render this much grass again, unless I can get a few more
RAM chips to put in my box. I hope you like it. Please let me know what you
think about the improvements I announced in .general. Enjoy. :)

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'hierba.jpg' (120 KB)

Preview of image 'hierba.jpg'

Interesting.  I'm not so sure about that distinct pattern in the grass
though, unless that is what you were trying to do.  Don't worry about
your hard drive it can take it.

"Tony[B]" wrote:
> 
> Well, here it is. This is what I left rendering last night. I fear for my
> hard drive. The poor thing thrashed for hours. I don't know how Mick can do
> it. I will never render this much grass again, unless I can get a few more
> RAM chips to put in my box. I hope you like it. Please let me know what you
> think about the improvements I announced in .general. Enjoy. :)
> 
>  [Image]

Post a reply to this message

> Interesting.  I'm not so sure about that distinct pattern in the grass
> though, unless that is what you were trying to do.

That was a little SNAFU on my part. I added sine_wave to the bumps to see
how that would look, and forgot to change it back for the final render.

> Don't worry about your hard drive it can take it.

I'd rather not take any chances.

Post a reply to this message

In article <39591ca1@news.povray.org>, "Tony[B]" 
<ben### [at] panamac-comnet> wrote:

> Well, here it is. This is what I left rendering last night. I fear 
> for my hard drive. The poor thing thrashed for hours. I don't know 
> how Mick can do it. I will never render this much grass again, unless 
> I can get a few more RAM chips to put in my box. I hope you like it. 
> Please let me know what you think about the improvements I announced 
> in .general. Enjoy. :)

Green matter? It looks like a grassy brain...

-- 
Christopher James Huff - Personal e-mail: chr### [at] maccom
TAG(Technical Assistance Group) e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
Personal Web page: http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG Web page: http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message

Hmm, looks the same ;) Good work on the memory and speed-enhancements. I
thought boxes were faster, though.....

"Tony[B]" wrote:

> Well, here it is. This is what I left rendering last night. I fear for my
> hard drive. The poor thing thrashed for hours. I don't know how Mick can do
> it. I will never render this much grass again, unless I can get a few more
> RAM chips to put in my box. I hope you like it. Please let me know what you
> think about the improvements I announced in .general. Enjoy. :)
>
>  [Image]

--
Samuel Benge

E-Mail: STB### [at] aolcom

Visit my isosurface tutorial at http://members.aol.com/stbenge

Post a reply to this message

It's pretty neat, but is it worth it?  I'd say, not really, especially at 5+
hours but mostly because of taking 329+MB.  You would still need still more
grass blades and a larger scale of a scene to do it justice in a complete
scene.  Well, maybe some people have the machines for it but most probably
don't.
This is another good example of where parsing optimizations would be a welcome
change, whatever the heck they might be  :-)

Bob

Post a reply to this message

> It's pretty neat, but is it worth it?

For decoration here and there, yes, but for filling large areas, no. Unless
you have *lots* of RAM.

Post a reply to this message

> Hmm, looks the same ;)

Yes, it's still your baby. :)

>Good work on the memory and speed-enhancements. I
> thought boxes were faster, though...

Thanks. I've added some more stuff. I think I'm done now. I might add one
more feature before I release it though. I think that boxes are faster, but
when you compare a mesh to the whole thing, the mesh is faster. Besides,
memory efficiency is more important, I think.

Post a reply to this message

Here, here! Povray is fine up to about 50,000 object after that, when it has
to use the hard disk things really slow down. Some sort of buffering?

Mick

"Bob Hughes" <per### [at] aolcom?subject=PoV-News:> wrote in message
news:3959ae48@news.povray.org...
> It's pretty neat, but is it worth it?  I'd say, not really, especially at
5+
> hours but mostly because of taking 329+MB.  You would still need still
more
> grass blades and a larger scale of a scene to do it justice in a complete
> scene.  Well, maybe some people have the machines for it but most probably
> don't.
> This is another good example of where parsing optimizations would be a
welcome
> change, whatever the heck they might be  :-)
>
> Bob
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Mic Hazelgrove" <mic### [at] mhazelgrovefsnetcouk> wrote in message
news:395a18da@news.povray.org...
| Here, here! Povray is fine up to about 50,000 object after that, when it has
| to use the hard disk things really slow down. Some sort of buffering?

Disks are just plain slow for using as "virtual" memory anyway.
From what I've seen personally, the declaration of a set of objects and
reusing them simply eats up the memory far more than seems necessary.  That's
from my outside looking in viewpoint about it.
It might be because of the final placements of the previously defined things
that makes memory increase so drastically.  It would seem to reason that if
you have one complete object made and then use it twice or two thousand times
that it would remain nearly the same consumption of memory as a single
instance of that object, plus some transformation info is all.  So I think
POV-Ray must be using almost the same amount of memory to recreate each new
"clone" as it would were there as many written out in the scene file
individually.
In other words, maybe it's not the object itself but the transformations on
each use of it that causes the growth of a memory file.  Since it all needs to
be set up into a ray traced scene there might be a analogy to a unity object
which is then many times larger than the separate parts it's made up of.
But I think I'm just repeating what has been thought of before.  Layman's
method of thinking  :-)

Bob

Post a reply to this message