 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/21/2014 4:08 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 21-8-2014 9:43, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> On 21/08/2014 01:12 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> Uh.. Just don't expect Firefox to hand that site well.
>>
>> Does anybody remember when Firefox was the browser of choice, because it
>> was so much faster than everything else? These days, Firefox seems to
>> take *forever* to do anything...
>
> What is /forever/ though? from above I understand 4-5 seconds to be
> /unacceptable/ ;-) To tell the truth, I have no complains about firefox.
>
> Thomas
He said that the page takes that in Chrome, it takes minutes, not
seconds, in Firefox. But, really, for any other page it seems to work
fine. It only really has issues with shadertoy.com, due to what its
loading, and a similar issue with pages with large scale animated gif.
Its something to do with how it doesn't properly load those things in
parallel right. Its a known problem, and one they, supposedly, would
have to completely rework large sections of code to fix. But, since it
effects less than maybe 100th of a percent of sites, in any noticeable
way...
--
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Umm. No, when I try it in Firefox its more like 4-5 minutes.
:-O
I don't remember the last time I had FF installed and it sounds like I
won't be installing it again anytime soon.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22-8-2014 5:20, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> He said that the page takes that in Chrome, it takes minutes, not
> seconds, in Firefox.
Ah ok. I misread that it seems.
> But, really, for any other page it seems to work
> fine. It only really has issues with shadertoy.com, due to what its
> loading, and a similar issue with pages with large scale animated gif.
> Its something to do with how it doesn't properly load those things in
> parallel right. Its a known problem, and one they, supposedly, would
> have to completely rework large sections of code to fix. But, since it
> effects less than maybe 100th of a percent of sites, in any noticeable
> way...
>
I suppose that all browsers would be more or less affected by these
issues, although some browsers might be better equipped to cope with them.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/21/2014 11:47 PM, scott wrote:
>> Umm. No, when I try it in Firefox its more like 4-5 minutes.
>
> :-O
>
> I don't remember the last time I had FF installed and it sounds like I
> won't be installing it again anytime soon.
>
Personally, I hate the lack of customizability in Chrome, and the basic
lack of certain in-built features in it. Otherwise, it has some features
for html5 that are not yet implemented any place else, which, if you
wanted to use them, means they won't work in FF, and, some shaders
depend on them too. But, really, as I said in another post, the problem
generally only happens when large images/files that need to transfer, on
the same page, like.. large animate gifs, or, shaders, which seem to
thread badly, somehow, and probably for the same reasons. For 99.999% of
the pages out there, they work more or less equally well. And, I won't
give up the plugins I use in it, just for some stuff I rarely visit. lol
--
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> One surprising thing is that the rippling water doesn't cast caustics on
> the sea floor. Then again, I guess the entire sky is more or less
> uniformly bright, so...
I noticed that. I was also going to complain that when the beads get
splashed by waves, they don't become wet.
;)
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25/08/2014 02:06 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>> One surprising thing is that the rippling water doesn't cast caustics on
>> the sea floor. Then again, I guess the entire sky is more or less
>> uniformly bright, so...
>
> I noticed that. I was also going to complain that when the beads get
> splashed by waves, they don't become wet.
>
> ;)
I did start a render a while back where a rock was partially submerged
in water, and the waves actually reflect off the sides of it. You can
write a closed-form equation for that if you're careful. But the render
times were trans-sane...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
