if I'm not mistaken there is a way to save the radisoisty file in pov-ray. 
would making sure each time you did radisoity you saved the file work 
around the problem?

ron### [at] povrayorg (Ron Parker) wrote in 
<slr### [at] linuxparkerrfwicom>:

>On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 01:32:01 +0200, woo### [at] accumuse wrote:
>>If I understand things correctly you don't get the same random seed
>>every time
>>you start a render, this leads to the images not fitting together as
>>nice as
>>they should, this is very noticable if you are using radiosity. Since 
>>povray
>>doesn't store the seed it will not be able to make your scene perfect,
>
>
>It's not about a random seed; it's about the radiosity cache.  When POV
>samples an area for radiosity calculations, it saves the result of the
>sample and reuses it later if it needs something sufficiently close by.
>If you abort the render and restart it later, POV starts over with the
>default radiosity cache (that's what it's building when it does the 
>required mosaic preview) that doesn't contain all the fine-grained 
>samples it had at the end of the previous run.  Thus, the samples on
>the first scanline of the new region probably looked at a point further 
>away, or a slightly different point, than the samples on the last line
>of the old region, leading to subtle tonal variations.
>

Post a reply to this message

On 28 Jun 2000 23:35:08 -0400, daishi wrote:
>if I'm not mistaken there is a way to save the radisoisty file in pov-ray. 
>would making sure each time you did radisoity you saved the file work 
>around the problem?

For continued renders, yes.  I'll leave the question of whether it would
help parallel rendering as an exercise for the reader.

-- 
Ron Parker   http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
My opinions.  Mine.  Not anyone else's.

Post a reply to this message

ron### [at] povrayorg (Ron Parker) wrote in
<slr### [at] linuxparkerrfwicom>: 

>On 28 Jun 2000 23:35:08 -0400, daishi wrote:
>>if I'm not mistaken there is a way to save the radisoisty file in
>>pov-ray. would making sure each time you did radisoity you saved the
>>file work around the problem?
>
>For continued renders, yes.  I'll leave the question of whether it would
>help parallel rendering as an exercise for the reader.
>

me thinks I'll try this tomorrow....

Post a reply to this message

I'm pulling no punches here. I have no respect for folks who come into this
form and insult us ...

"lavender" <lav### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Computers have been networked not for a long time. The internet is almost
> every where. If programs are not written for networks they might as well
> stay in dos. They will not be of use. Povray is know for doing things that

Fascinating point of view. A non-networked program is not of use ? Wow. I
guess I had better throw out my non-networked version of Photoshop, the
non-networked C++ compiler I use, the non-networked word processor, the non-
networked utilities, and probably 90% of the other software on my machine.

After all, you said they 'will not be of use' and you couldn't possibly be
wrong ... could you ?????

> other programs can not yet. But Povray in all of its power can not even
> brake up the image into chunks and pass those to nodes to render and return

What do brakes have to do with rendering ?

> the part of the image. This IS a simple venture.

Really ? And you're an expert on the subject I see ... how many raytracers
have you written so far ? Can you point me to some URL's or binaries ? I
would like to understand how 'simple' this is by seeing your quality work ...

> Even simpler is to send frames out to different systems.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Come back when you understand
the subject.

> povray team should have already done. I know the program is free but honer
> and pride in work along with integraty should have driven them to write a

Don't presume to tell us what we should do with our time. You have no right
whatsoever to belittle us and suggest that our integrity is blemished because
we haven't done something that YOU think is easy.

We see people like you come along from time to time. They know little but
say much, and presume to insult us because we don't do things that they
want us to.

-- Chris Cason
   POV-Team

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:52:07 +1000, Chris Cason wrote:
>I'm pulling no punches here. 
[extremely fine rant elided]

Seconded.  Couldn'a said it better myself.

-- 
Ron Parker   http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
My opinions.  Mine.  Not anyone else's.

Post a reply to this message

In article <slr### [at] linuxparkerrfwicom> , 
ron### [at] povrayorg (Ron Parker) wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:52:07 +1000, Chris Cason wrote:
>>I'm pulling no punches here.
> [extremely fine rant elided]
>
> Seconded.  Couldn'a said it better myself.

I agree.


____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich
e-mail: mac### [at] povrayorg

I am a member of the POV-Ray Team.
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

In povray.general Ron Parker <ron### [at] povrayorg> wrote:
: So 9x and NT are mostly preemptive, but they still have a cooperative 
: system inside for legacy apps.

  That's why they are only partly pre-emptive.
  I can make a program that completely steals all the CPU time in windows.
  I can't do this in Unix. I can make a program that steals _most_ of the
CPU time, but still it just can't lock up the system; other programs can
still run and, for example, kill the resource-stealing program if necessary.
In windows, however, it is possible to make a program that locks up the
system completely.
  I don't know about win2k or NT.

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

In povray.general lavender <lav### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
: Computers have been networked not for a long time. The internet is almost 
: every where. If programs are not written for networks they might as well 
: stay in dos.

  Not true. Multitasking (and of course memory protection) is a very important
feature even in a 1-processor computer. Of course one sole program will not
benefit from multitasking in a 1-processor computer, but you need only two
programs running at the "same" time to get the benefits (not to talk about
the tens or even hundres of processes running in a typical multitasking
environment).
  If you have several computers connected to each other, a program could
benefit from this and make each one of them perform an independent task of
the program.
  Usually this needs direct support in the program itself, but luckily
povray is not one of those. Since povray supports partial renders you can
run povray in each computer and render one part of the image.
  With proper tools you can automatize this task (without having to patch
povray itself). Of course a proper operating system will help providing these
tools by itself or allowing to make them rather easily (either with some
scripting language or easy support to a programming language like C).
  Unfortunately Windows is not one of these operating systems.

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

In povray.general Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
: There will be a rewrite for 4.0 using C++, but consider that we do it in our
: spare time, don't get paid $10000/month and work 50 hours/week for POV-Ray.

  On the other hand you don't have deadline pressures, market pressures,
competition pressures ("must have this product out before competitors").
Which means that if you are not happy with the current version, you just don't
publish it and that's it. You publish it when it's ready, and then it will
certainly be a lot higher quality program.

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

"lavender" <lav### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:8F617F84Elavendersmith@204.213.191.228...
> Computers have been networked not for a long time. The internet is almost
> .....

Hmm, I smell a rat - or am I just being naive in thinking that no one could
be this idiotic and insulting accidentally?

> ... As for money they can talk to me about that.

I hereby appoint myself financial director in the lavender/POV-team
endevour. Send me money. Initially, it will be spent on a new Pentium III PC
for myself, as I wish to render all contracts with radiosity and photons on
iso-surface paper.

Post a reply to this message