|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi.
What renders faster on POV-Ray 3.7? A union of boxes, or a difference of boxes
resulting in boxes? Thanks.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 30.03.2015 um 16:07 schrieb Sven Littkowski:
> Hi.
>
> What renders faster on POV-Ray 3.7? A union of boxes, or a difference of boxes
> resulting in boxes? Thanks.
My bet would be on the union, but I suggest to test for yourself.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 30.03.2015 um 16:07 schrieb Sven Littkowski:
> > Hi.
> >
> > What renders faster on POV-Ray 3.7? A union of boxes, or a difference of boxes
> > resulting in boxes? Thanks.
>
> My bet would be on the union, but I suggest to test for yourself.
I would bet on the union too, but in this case - especially in the case of boxes
- you should not consider the parse and render time only. You should consider
what approach causes more brain damage to write down the union or difference
version of your desired object too.
Best regards,
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Very true. I am sitting for hours in front of all that code. Brain smoking,
indeed! .-D
"MichaelJF" <mi-### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> > Am 30.03.2015 um 16:07 schrieb Sven Littkowski:
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > What renders faster on POV-Ray 3.7? A union of boxes, or a difference of boxes
> > > resulting in boxes? Thanks.
> >
> > My bet would be on the union, but I suggest to test for yourself.
>
> I would bet on the union too, but in this case - especially in the case of boxes
> - you should not consider the parse and render time only. You should consider
> what approach causes more brain damage to write down the union or difference
> version of your desired object too.
>
> Best regards,
> Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |