Glen Berry wrote:
> 
> What about outputing animation frames to an "archive file" of some
> type (ie ZIP file)?  If you went this route, then there would only be

What about creating a folder with the scene name and place the numbered
files there?

sig

Post a reply to this message

This one seems to make the most sense. Every platform
suports a directory. And even if you still stuck to
the 8.3 name for each of the files inside, going from
00000000.xxx to 99999999.xxx is just more frames than
I would want to render.

Mr. Art

Sigmund Kyrre Aas wrote:

> What about creating a folder with the scene name and place the numbered
> files there?
> 
> sig

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
>   I would suggest some #ifdef's in the povray source code. If we are NOT
> compiling for DOS, then just use as long file names as needed. If we are
> compiling for DOS, then truncate and don't care about the consecuences.
> 

I agree, how many people use the MS-DOS version?

PoD.

Post a reply to this message

PoD wrote:

> I agree, how many people use the MS-DOS version?

Still quite a few using it from what I have heard. Chris Colefax
for example still uses the dos version for all of his include file
development work.

-- 
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

On 17 May 2000 07:34:05 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>  I would suggest some #ifdef's in the povray source code. If we are NOT 
>compiling for DOS, then just use as long file names as needed. If we are
>compiling for DOS, then truncate and don't care about the consecuences.

I would prefer Sigmund Kyrre Aas's idea of using a subdirectory for
animation frames output. If we are using DOS, then output the frames
into a subdirectory. The name of the subdirectory could be taken from
the "+O" command line parameter. Alternately, it could be named after
the parent POV scene file. Each frame in the subdirectory would be
sequentially named  from 00000001.tga, to a possible 99999999.tga
(assuming a tga output format.)

This could be done conditionally with #ifdef's in the source code, and
make it a DOS-specific feature. If we'd rather, it could also be an
option for all platforms, by adding an option to POV's ini file, or
command line. That way, the end user could pick the behaviour that
suited them best.

I don't really like truncation at all. It's simply an awkward
arrangement.

Later,
Glen Berry

( Remove the "7" from 7no### [at] ezwvcom to email me. )

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 18 May 2000 04:55:23 +0930, PoD <pod### [at] merlinnetau> wrote:

>I agree, how many people use the MS-DOS version?

I do. I imagine that there would be several others as well. I also use
the Windows version, but if I need to squeeze the most out of my
available system resources, then the DOS version is my choice. There
have been several scenes that I could render with the DOS version
entirely in RAM, while the WIN95 version went into swap quite early.
This isn't a problem with POV, of course, but a characteristic of
using WIN95. DOS simply demands far less of my computer's resources,
which leaves more for POV-Ray.

I hope there will always be a DOS version of POV-Ray. I also hope that
it never gets to be a neglected orphan.

Later,
Glen Berry

( Remove the "7" from 7no### [at] ezwvcom to email me. )

Post a reply to this message

I have measured this, and (to my surprise) the MSVC compile of WinPov
renders a bit faster than any DOS compile when there's no need for swapping
or when both have to swap. Of course when the scene uses just as much memory
to need swapping in windows but not in DOS, there may be a difference in
favor of the DOS compile, but I think it's a rarer situation.

-- 
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

This sounds like a good solution as well.

-- 
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

Glen Berry <7no### [at] ezwvcom> writes:

> On Thu, 18 May 2000 04:55:23 +0930, PoD <pod### [at] merlinnetau> wrote:
> 
> >I agree, how many people use the MS-DOS version?
> 
> I do. I imagine that there would be several others as well. I also use
> the Windows version, but if I need to squeeze the most out of my
> available system resources, then the DOS version is my choice. There
> have been several scenes that I could render with the DOS version
> entirely in RAM, while the WIN95 version went into swap quite early.
> This isn't a problem with POV, of course, but a characteristic of
> using WIN95. DOS simply demands far less of my computer's resources,
> which leaves more for POV-Ray.

Have you tried Linux (or another free Unix)? I haven't compared it
directly in respect of POV-Ray, but I guess that it can be configured
to be almost as modest as DOS. A boot disc might be enough in your case.

Follow'up to povray.unix

Thomas

-- 
http://thomas.willhalm.de/ (includes pgp key)

Post a reply to this message

On 18 May 2000 03:53:24 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>  I have measured this, and (to my surprise) the MSVC compile of WinPov
>renders a bit faster than any DOS compile when there's no need for swapping
>or when both have to swap. 

Unless I'm mistaken, not everyone can run the MSVC compile. Doesn't
that require a recent model of Pentium processor to work properly?

>Of course when the scene uses just as much memory
>to need swapping in windows but not in DOS, there may be a difference in
>favor of the DOS compile, but I think it's a rarer situation.

This is *exactly* the situation I was referring to. It isn't nearly as
rare as you make it sound. It has happened to me several times.

Later,
Glen Berry

( Remove the "7" from 7no### [at] ezwvcom to email me. )

Post a reply to this message