 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mark M. Wilson" wrote:
> I suppose
> adding said dir. would be too confusing...
I meant, "adding said dir. _TO MY PATH_ :-)
--Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mark M. Wilson wrote:
>
>
> Roz wrote:
>>
> Just extract a prebuilt binary into its own directory and
>> run it from there with './povray [options] [scene-file]' (no quotes).
>>
>
> Ugh, would I always have to run it from its own directory?
No, you can also specify the ful path e.g. if you have unpacked it into
/home/testuser/thisdirectory/ then call it with
/home/testuser/thisdirectory/povray
> I suppose
> adding said dir. would be too confusing, assuming I hadn't uninstalled
> the other binary, and that's the reason?
You could just copy it into a directory that is already in your path, e.g.
/usr/local/bin/. But don't call it 'povray' then when you want to keep the
original. My new binaries have different names anyways (like
povray.pentium3) so there will be no problem.
> Am I correct in thinking that the new on the POV-Ray site is a "revised"
> 3.5?
Yes, the new official binary is faster but still quite a bit slower than
mines. A quick test on chess2.pov gave:
old official binary: 181s
new official binary: 134s
my generic-pentium binary: 109s
my pentium III binary: 96s
my pentium3 icc binary: 79s
BTW: povworld.org is back up!
- Micha
--
http://objects.povworld.org - the POV-Ray Objects Collection
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Another note: My 'pentium' binary should work on all pentium compatible
CPUs, that is all AMDs (k6, athlon, duron, xp) and of course all intels
(celeron, pentium I / II / III, pentium4) - just on everything that claims
to be pentium compatible (I don't think anybody wants to do ray-tracing on
a non-pentium compatible x86 cpu anymore.)
--
http://objects.povworld.org - the POV-Ray Objects Collection
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mark M. Wilson <mmw### [at] ncsl dcrstatencus> wrote:
>> I suppose
>> adding said dir. would be too confusing...
> I meant, "adding said dir. _TO MY PATH_ :-)
Why would it be too confusing?
--
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mark M. Wilson wrote:
>
> Roz wrote:
>
> Just extract a prebuilt binary into its own directory and
>
>>run it from there with './povray [options] [scene-file]' (no quotes).
>>
>
>
> Ugh, would I always have to run it from its own directory? I suppose
> adding said dir. would be too confusing, assuming I hadn't uninstalled
> the other binary, and that's the reason?
The only reason was just a safeguard for testing purposes. If it does
work good for you then you can copy it over to one of your default
paths such as:
cp /pathto/testbinary/povray /usr/local/bin/povray.fast
Then you can invoke it with just 'povray.fast [options] ...'. You can
overwrite it if you prefer or move the current binary to a backup
like 'mv /usr/local/bin/povray /usr/local/bin/povray.snail' prior to
copying the faster binary into the /usr/local/bin directory. This is
what I did because I'm used to typing 'povray ...' to render stuff
but I didn't want to lose the original file in case of problems or
to run a benchmark comparison.
>
>>But at the very least, try the new one from POV-Ray's site and save
>>yourself some rendering time.
>
>
> Am I correct in thinking that the new on the POV-Ray site is a "revised"
> 3.5?
Yep. However, I agree with Micha Riser about the Pentium optimized ones
being even faster than the new official binary. Read Micha's replies to
your posts and check out the Pentium compatible optimized binary.
-Roz
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
>
> Why would it be too confusing?
>
Because I'd end up having two POV binaries on the system, and if the
paths to both of them were in my PATH, then bash would not know which
one I wanted and, well, I don't really know what it would do...
I've never had conflicting binaries on my system, I don't think. I'm
too G-D lazy to type a whole path, although Roz's response about
povray.fast and povray.snail gives me ideas about aliases....
-Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Roz wrote:
>
> Yep. However, I agree with Micha Riser about the Pentium optimized ones
> being even faster than the new official binary. Read Micha's replies to
> your posts and check out the Pentium compatible optimized binary.
>
Will do. Much obliged, thanks!
--Mark W.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mark M. Wilson <mmw### [at] ncsldcrstatencus> wrote:
> Because I'd end up having two POV binaries on the system
POV-Ray binaries don't need to be called 'povray'. You can rename them
to whatever you like.
--
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Also useful. :-] Thanks!
-Mark W.
Warp wrote:
>
> Mark M. Wilson <mmw### [at] ncsldcrstatencus> wrote:
> > Because I'd end up having two POV binaries on the system
>
> POV-Ray binaries don't need to be called 'povray'. You can rename them
> to whatever you like.
>
> --
> #macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
> N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
> N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
