 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
dose anyone else find it annoying that so much of the screen is taken up
with the tool bars. When you add in the space taken up by the abreviated
message window during a render there seems to be very little room to edit
files.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
K. Tyler wrote:
>
> Matthew Malham wrote:
>
> > dose anyone else find it annoying that so much of the screen is taken up
> > with the tool bars. When you add in the space taken up by the abreviated
> > message window during a render there seems to be very little room to edit
> > files.
>
> Yes
>
> K.Tyler
Me too, I'd also prefer the clock cycles used on that animation in the
corner be used for rendering.
BTW. you can hide the message window after the rendering has started.
Cheers, PoD.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 06:30:47 +0930, PoD <pod### [at] merlin netau> wrote:
>Me too, I'd also prefer the clock cycles used on that animation in the
>corner be used for rendering.
This has been changed in beta 5. You can shut off the animation now.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Matthew Malham" <mma### [at] southcomcomau> wrote:
>dose anyone else find it annoying that so much of the screen is taken up
>with the tool bars. When you add in the space taken up by the abreviated
>message window during a render there seems to be very little room to edit
>files.
Well then why don't you just turn the toolbar off?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Me too, I'd also prefer the clock cycles used on that animation in the
>corner be used for rendering.
That animation uses so few clock cycles that you probably couldn't measure it
(unless you're using some horrid old non-accelerated graphics card). Please
credit us with some common sense, will you ? We wouldn't put something like
that in if we thought it would make any significant difference to render time.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 17:22:36 GMT, povray.org admin team
<new### [at] DESPAMpovrayorg> wrote:
>>Me too, I'd also prefer the clock cycles used on that animation in the
>>corner be used for rendering.
>
>That animation uses so few clock cycles that you probably couldn't measure it
>(unless you're using some horrid old non-accelerated graphics card).
Ah, but some of us not only have horrid old non-accelerated graphics cards,
we also have horrid old 486/66 processors. Every cycle counts on those.
Thanks for making it possible to disable the animation in beta 5.
Donations of AT Pentium motherboards accepted...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
povray.org admin team wrote:
>
> >Me too, I'd also prefer the clock cycles used on that animation in the
> >corner be used for rendering.
>
> That animation uses so few clock cycles that you probably couldn't measure it
> (unless you're using some horrid old non-accelerated graphics card). Please
> credit us with some common sense, will you ? We wouldn't put something like
> that in if we thought it would make any significant difference to render time.
Please don't take comments like these so personally, I think POV-Ray is
a damn fine piece of software.
I tend to think of POV-Ray as being a nuts-and-bolts sort of thing, the
interface is basically a text file and the user tells the program
exactly what to do down to the last decimal place. This is what really
appeals to me. I appreciate that someone put in hours of unpaid time to
create the windows interface, but some things are as good as they need
to be, as was the 3.0 windows front end.
BTW. I've downloaded beta5 now and turned the animation off, so that's
no longer an issue.
Cheers, PoD.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
