 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Did you ever use the rendermans network render feature?
It is extreme cool and quick'n dirty.
It use only one Port and _nothing_ else!
The actual beta of PovRay already supports multicore rendering. To enhance the
render power, a network render feature would help.
To use just one port like RenderMan do would be a great thing. It makes it easy
to use several OSes in a render cluster and save time to setup network
rendering.
Holger
(Ok, that's enough for today, now I'm shut up ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Once 3.7 is complete, I believe more distributed forms of rendering
would be possible.
But one thing at a time. The first 3.7 beta was released in 2005; I'd
like to see this go final, first :)
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <Ben### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> But one thing at a time. The first 3.7 beta was released in 2005; I'd
> like to see this go final, first :)
What's wrong with perpetual beta status? Google does that and it has
worked just fine for them... ;)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers schrieb:
> Once 3.7 is complete, I believe more distributed forms of rendering
> would be possible.
>
> But one thing at a time. The first 3.7 beta was released in 2005; I'd
> like to see this go final, first :)
Yes, that's the roadmap. While the basic architecture of 3.7.0 is in
fact geared towards generic support for distributed rendering, the
coming version will make use of that architecture only for symmetric
multiprocessing; anything beyond that is left for future versions, in
order to get this one stable and out of the door ASAP.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> What's wrong with perpetual beta status? Google does that and it has
> worked just fine for them... ;)
As an umbrella status, this is OK.
Would it be advantageous to have features or SDL keywords individually
(formally) tagged with a status, as informally happens anyway with new stuff?
Caveat: could become complicated where features are combined, e.g. media with
radiosity.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 20.11.2010 03:13, schrieb MessyBlob:
> Warp<war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> What's wrong with perpetual beta status? Google does that and it has
>> worked just fine for them... ;)
>
> As an umbrella status, this is OK.
> Would it be advantageous to have features or SDL keywords individually
> (formally) tagged with a status, as informally happens anyway with new stuff?
> Caveat: could become complicated where features are combined, e.g. media with
> radiosity.
1) This is already done. For instance, if you use SSLT, you'll get a
warning that the feature is experimental.
2) There may still be the need for beta versions, as the integration of
a feature may accidently break another unrelated one. And then there are
major architectural changes as with 3.7, which involve the risk of
breaking virtually any feature you could name.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
