I've 3 computers and 5 CPU's (see www.fa2.de) so I was unhappy with the fact
that POV 3.5 on some pictures really took long time (even on my DUAL Athlon
2000 MP) while a lot of POWER was unused.

I've just developed a system to distribute a Rendering on MANY PC's and also
to use as many CPU's on each of the machines.

Anyone intrested as a beta-tester ?

Mail me pls. and tell me about your qualifications.

Thanks
--Theo Gottwald
http://www.it-berater.org

Post a reply to this message

Theo Gottwald * wrote:
> 
> I've 3 computers and 5 CPU's (see www.fa2.de) so I was unhappy with the fact
> that POV 3.5 on some pictures really took long time (even on my DUAL Athlon
> 2000 MP) while a lot of POWER was unused.
> 
> I've just developed a system to distribute a Rendering on MANY PC's and also
> to use as many CPU's on each of the machines.

A bit more information about how it works would be useful, there are
various more or less useful systems for that purpose.

And please read the cross-posting guidelines in
povray.announce.frequently-asked-questions

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,                 
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/  
Last updated 03 Aug. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

As you all may know the only possibility to share rendering with an
unpatched POV 3.5 is to split the Picture in mny small parts using
the -SR, -SC etc. and then render each small part by itself.

This is how it works. I am just doing some test-renderings to give you
numbers about what speed increase can be seen.

********************************************

It works with three ".exe"-Files.

You drop one or more ".pov"-Files in the Main Window.

Then this ".pov"-Files get rendered immediately by one of two methods.

You receive the ready picture at the end in the folder from where you
dropped the ".pov"-File.

Internally POV-ray gets started multiple times and renders "Tiles" of the
full picture.

Automatically these Tiles are put together by the second file (PicPend.exe).

He has a limitation at about 2048x2048 Pixels (VB-Autorefresh Bitmap).

In case of "distributed rendering" the PC's need

- to have a shared Folder together.

- on each of the PC's POV 3.5 must be correctly installed.

- on each of the PC's must run "RenderAgent.exe" (File 3 = RA).

RA looks every few seconds into the shared Dir ifthere is a render-job.

If he finds a render-job he claims it for himself (so noone elsetakes it)
and then

immediately starts to render the pic. When he is ready he automatically
waits for the next Renderjob.

You can tell him to use up to 4 CPU's (render one or more tiles).

You can use it on as man PC's as you want. Currently you can have 8 PC's
render on ONE Picture.

But you can have >512 Pictures render at once from the distributor.



In case of Local SMP-rendering, he splits the picture in the desired numbers
of parts and starts

the rendering locally, picture by picture, keeping all CPU's busy.

Was it understandable ? If not ask.

c.u.

--Theo Gottwald

http://www.it-berater.org







"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3D54FD0A.EB0637D5@gmx.de...
>
>
> Theo Gottwald * wrote:
> >
> > I've 3 computers and 5 CPU's (see www.fa2.de) so I was unhappy with the
fact
> > that POV 3.5 on some pictures really took long time (even on my DUAL
Athlon
> > 2000 MP) while a lot of POWER was unused.
> >
> > I've just developed a system to distribute a Rendering on MANY PC's and
also
> > to use as many CPU's on each of the machines.
>
> A bit more information about how it works would be useful, there are
> various more or less useful systems for that purpose.
>
> And please read the cross-posting guidelines in
> povray.announce.frequently-asked-questions
>
> Christoph
>
> --
> POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,
> TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
> Last updated 03 Aug. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

Theo Gottwald * wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> Was it understandable ? 
> 

Yes, so it's an automatism for distributing partial renders.  No special
handling of radiosity, photons, etc.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,                 
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/  
Last updated 03 Aug. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

Now go on and tell me that I could save my work cause exactly that is
already avaiable :-) ?

If so, I'd be intrested to know where and how they work and if they are
free.

I did not touch the POV 3.5 EXE, cause I want my system to be compatible
with any future new POV-version.

Originally I hoped something like this could be
inside the POV-Shell. But it wasn't and in the Net I found only Patches
(mainly for older POV-Versions).

Thats not what I want. Only V. 3.5 and full throttle.

--Theo

PS: Its only intresting for those who have a) multiple CPU's or b) more than
one PC.


"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3D55121B.1C467686@gmx.de...

> Yes, so it's an automatism for distributing partial renders.  No special
> handling of radiosity, photons, etc.
>
> Christoph
>
> --
> POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,
> TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
> Last updated 03 Aug. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

The test rendering proofs that it was a good idea to distribute things.

I could render optics.pov at 1600x1200 distributed on 5 CPU's in :
14:51:03 - 15:29:49 = ~ 30 minutes

now I tried it "the normal way" starting at 15:32:28 its now 16:06 and we
are still in Line: 277 from 1200.

I think I can stop that now cause I want to render other things ...

--Theo

Post a reply to this message

"Theo Gottwald *" <The### [at] t-onlinede> wrote in message
news:3d551e3e@news.povray.org...
> I think I can stop that now cause I want to render other things ...
>


    You might want to start by rendering some Radiosity samples - As
Christoph hinted, there are problems with your approach to distributed
rendering and some of POVs features, such as Radiosity - try it out, I think
you'll soon see why distributed-POV solutions are generally patches...

--
Pandora/Scott Hill/[::O:M:C::]Scorpion
Software Engineer.
http://www.pandora-software.com

Post a reply to this message

I hope I understand what you want to say.

Several scenes have a long  "precalculation-time".
In some scenes the real rendering part is rather small.

However that is theoretical.
Try my programm and feel the diffrence when you render your picture on three
computers.
Feel the brute force.

If I render things in pieces I have other advantages:
- better caching inside the CPU/L2
- geometries outside that area get not touched.
- Just try it: render a small piece of your actual picture. Now think that
in the same time other PC's have just
   rendered the rest of the pic. Thats it.

However, if you have two or more PC's you should try my program
and see the advantage.

In most cases there is a real advantage of (I guess) 25% -45% (2 CPU's).
We know that this numbers heavily depends on the resolution and the
precalculation-time.
It may not be intresting to make small pictures with a long
precalculation-time.

In every case its intresting in resolutions higher then 640x480.

If you compile it with a faster C-Compiler you get lousy 7%. If you render
it distributed you can get it in a quarter of the original time.

See it and feel the diffrence.You don't need to have a network with 8 PC's
in your bussiness.
But if you have ... thgen you're lucky :-) cause you have three CPU's more
then me :-))).

On each of these PC's there must be a installation of POV 3.5.
It should be in W2k or up. (tested with).

Under these circustances the Programms should not even need an installation.
Just copy the folder somewhere and share it if you want to render
distributed (not necessary for SMP-rendering).

Thats all you need to get your "1 week picture" in  less at the same day !

Example: Try to edit glasses.pov (one number must be changed to enable the
photons).
Render it "the normal way" at 1600x1200 and wait 3-4 days for the result.

Then use my system and distribute it on several PC's. Get your pic at the
same day !

It works fine for me. I'll work on the surface a bit and then publish it on
my web-site.
However anyone who is intrested can qualify for beta-testing.

Thanks
--Theo

"Pandora" <pan### [at] pandora-softwarecom> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3d553519@news.povray.org...
> "Theo Gottwald *" <The### [at] t-onlinede> wrote in message
> news:3d551e3e@news.povray.org...
> > I think I can stop that now cause I want to render other things ...
> >
>
>
>     You might want to start by rendering some Radiosity samples - As
> Christoph hinted, there are problems with your approach to distributed
> rendering and some of POVs features, such as Radiosity - try it out, I
think
> you'll soon see why distributed-POV solutions are generally patches...
>
> --
> Pandora/Scott Hill/[::O:M:C::]Scorpion
> Software Engineer.
> http://www.pandora-software.com
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Its not www.fa2.de as said in the first posting,

but www.theogott.de where you can see my three PC's.

They have together 6400 MHz  and if there is anyone out there who thinks he
can render any picture at 1600x1200 faster, then lets try it. :-)

--Theo



"Theo Gottwald *" <The### [at] t-onlinede> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3d554b13@news.povray.org...
> I hope I understand what you want to say.
>
> Several scenes have a long  "precalculation-time".
> In some scenes the real rendering part is rather small.
>
> However that is theoretical.
> Try my programm and feel the diffrence when you render your picture on
three
> computers.
> Feel the brute force.
>
> If I render things in pieces I have other advantages:
> - better caching inside the CPU/L2
> - geometries outside that area get not touched.
> - Just try it: render a small piece of your actual picture. Now think that
> in the same time other PC's have just
>    rendered the rest of the pic. Thats it.
>
> However, if you have two or more PC's you should try my program
> and see the advantage.
>
> In most cases there is a real advantage of (I guess) 25% -45% (2 CPU's).
> We know that this numbers heavily depends on the resolution and the
> precalculation-time.
> It may not be intresting to make small pictures with a long
> precalculation-time.
>
> In every case its intresting in resolutions higher then 640x480.
>
> If you compile it with a faster C-Compiler you get lousy 7%. If you render
> it distributed you can get it in a quarter of the original time.
>
> See it and feel the diffrence.You don't need to have a network with 8 PC's
> in your bussiness.
> But if you have ... thgen you're lucky :-) cause you have three CPU's more
> then me :-))).
>
> On each of these PC's there must be a installation of POV 3.5.
> It should be in W2k or up. (tested with).
>
> Under these circustances the Programms should not even need an
installation.
> Just copy the folder somewhere and share it if you want to render
> distributed (not necessary for SMP-rendering).
>
> Thats all you need to get your "1 week picture" in  less at the same day !
>
> Example: Try to edit glasses.pov (one number must be changed to enable the
> photons).
> Render it "the normal way" at 1600x1200 and wait 3-4 days for the result.
>
> Then use my system and distribute it on several PC's. Get your pic at the
> same day !
>
> It works fine for me. I'll work on the surface a bit and then publish it
on
> my web-site.
> However anyone who is intrested can qualify for beta-testing.
>
> Thanks
> --Theo
>
> "Pandora" <pan### [at] pandora-softwarecom> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:3d553519@news.povray.org...
> > "Theo Gottwald *" <The### [at] t-onlinede> wrote in message
> > news:3d551e3e@news.povray.org...
> > > I think I can stop that now cause I want to render other things ...
> > >
> >
> >
> >     You might want to start by rendering some Radiosity samples - As
> > Christoph hinted, there are problems with your approach to distributed
> > rendering and some of POVs features, such as Radiosity - try it out, I
> think
> > you'll soon see why distributed-POV solutions are generally patches...
> >
> > --
> > Pandora/Scott Hill/[::O:M:C::]Scorpion
> > Software Engineer.
> > http://www.pandora-software.com
> >
> >
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Theo Gottwald * wrote:

Looks like an intersting stop gap till povray gets its head round
distributed rendering, and I ca see situations where it will be excedingly
useful

> but www.theogott.de where you can see my three PC's.

hmmm, perhaps you should concider vmware. hooking those 3 vids to the same
boxen and reclaiming some of your deskspace (keeping the other machines
running and using vnc)

--
Rick

Kitty5 NewMedia http://Kitty5.co.uk
POV-Ray News & Resources http://Povray.co.uk
TEL : +44 (01270) 501101 - FAX : +44 (01270) 251105 - ICQ : 15776037

PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA

Post a reply to this message

I've tested two original Scenes in diffrent ways. Here is the original
Log-file:


patio-radio rendered in 1024x768 in 1 Tiles (-) from 08-11-2002 / 07:03:09
to 08-11-2002 / 07:21:14 (1084).

cornell rendered in 1024x768 in 1 Tiles (-) from 08-11-2002 / 07:21:16 to
08-11-2002 / 07:29:47 (511).

patio-radio rendered in 1024x768 in 2 Tiles (V) from 08-11-2002 / 08:01:28
to 08-11-2002 / 08:15:17 (829).

cornell rendered in 1024x768 in 2 Tiles (V) from 08-11-2002 / 08:15:18 to
08-11-2002 / 08:20:01 (284).

cornell rendered in 1024x768 in 8 Tiles (H) from 08-11-2002 / 08:49:56 to
08-11-2002 / 08:53:47 (230).

patio-radio rendered in 1024x768 in 8 Tiles (H) from 08-11-2002 / 08:49:53
to 08-11-2002 / 09:00:06 (614).

Post a reply to this message

Theo Gottwald * wrote:
> 
> I've tested two original Scenes in diffrent ways. Here is the original
> Log-file:
> 
> patio-radio rendered in 1024x768 in 1 Tiles (-) from 08-11-2002 / 07:03:09
> to 08-11-2002 / 07:21:14 (1084).
> 
> cornell rendered in 1024x768 in 1 Tiles (-) from 08-11-2002 / 07:21:16 to
> 08-11-2002 / 07:29:47 (511).
> 
> patio-radio rendered in 1024x768 in 2 Tiles (V) from 08-11-2002 / 08:01:28
> to 08-11-2002 / 08:15:17 (829).
> 
> cornell rendered in 1024x768 in 2 Tiles (V) from 08-11-2002 / 08:15:18 to
> 08-11-2002 / 08:20:01 (284).
> 
> cornell rendered in 1024x768 in 8 Tiles (H) from 08-11-2002 / 08:49:56 to
> 08-11-2002 / 08:53:47 (230).
> 
> patio-radio rendered in 1024x768 in 8 Tiles (H) from 08-11-2002 / 08:49:53
> to 08-11-2002 / 09:00:06 (614).

The question with radiosity and photons is not whether your method is
faster but whether the image *quality* is the same. If you carefully
compare the images you are quite likely to find there are distinct
differences between what a single engine render produces and what
your tiles method produces. There is no doubt that for most of
POV-Ray's features your program has substantial possibilities for
speed improvements but for a small subset of POV-Ray's features your
program cannot resolve the problems inherent with those features in
muti tile renderings. It is true they will still render faster but
if you did an analytical comparison of the two methods you will find
that the images your program produces are not identical to the images
a single instance of POV-Ray will produce.

-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

Hi Rick,

(VNC)
1. IF I do so, how can I play next month Unreal Tournament 2 with my friends
:-) ?
 (I REALLY HOPE the man from Intel has been there and coded it for
SMP/Hyperthreading) :-)

2. The system works so I can proof  that it works .... you can download a
BETA that will change in a few days here:
http://www.it-berater.org/smpov.htm .

3. If you have questions or suggestions mail me.

--Theo Gottwald

PS: I've never understood why so simple things are not already built in the
POVRAY Shell.
      The person who did this Shell was really a perfect programmer, he did
not forget ANYTHING ...
       just that ....


"Rick [Kitty5]" <ric### [at] kitty5com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3d558e7a@news.povray.org...
> Theo Gottwald * wrote:
>
> Looks like an intersting stop gap till povray gets its head round
> distributed rendering, and I ca see situations where it will be excedingly
> useful
>
> > but www.theogott.de where you can see my three PC's.
>
> hmmm, perhaps you should concider vmware. hooking those 3 vids to the same
> boxen and reclaiming some of your deskspace (keeping the other machines
> running and using vnc)
>
> --
> Rick
>
> Kitty5 NewMedia http://Kitty5.co.uk
> POV-Ray News & Resources http://Povray.co.uk
> TEL : +44 (01270) 501101 - FAX : +44 (01270) 251105 - ICQ : 15776037
>
> PGP Public Key
> http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 10 Aug 2002 15:16:11 +0200, Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
wrote:
> Yes, so it's an automatism for distributing partial renders.

BTW: I have readed some old pov related pages from my own archives and found
link to www.distributed.net. Let's dream about distributed rendering :-)

ABX

Post a reply to this message

I've thought about that.

I've thought if it makes sense to do communication via TCP/IP and then be
able to distribute a rendering even over the internet.

However that is far from my current implementation cause in the first step I
want to distribute localy only - its safer).

For future successors we can dream from a POV 5 that can get rendertime from
another user anywhere in the world ... (Its not filesharing ... its
ray-sharing :-) ....

--theo

"ABX" <abx### [at] babilonorg> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:94meluc0b46jhi2gibb8ssigi4nb8hju0r@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 10 Aug 2002 15:16:11 +0200, Christoph Hormann
<chr### [at] gmxde>
> wrote:
> > Yes, so it's an automatism for distributing partial renders.
>
> BTW: I have readed some old pov related pages from my own archives and
found
> link to www.distributed.net. Let's dream about distributed rendering :-)
>
> ABX

Post a reply to this message

Theo Gottwald * wrote:
> For future successors we can dream from a POV 5 that can get
> rendertime from another user anywhere in the world ... (Its not
> filesharing ... its ray-sharing :-) ....

Stuff waiting for 5, a 4 rewrite is due - how about writing it from scratch
as a p2p ray server?


--
Rick

Kitty5 NewMedia http://Kitty5.co.uk
POV-Ray News & Resources http://Povray.co.uk
TEL : +44 (01270) 501101 - FAX : +44 (01270) 251105 - ICQ : 15776037

PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA



---

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/2002

Post a reply to this message

I doubt most people want to sent their scene-files through the net for
getting them rendered piece by piece.
However, I believe that next generation computers can render nearly anything
as fast as necessary.
However, rendertime-sharing could be an option for an future release.


"Rick [Kitty5]" <ric### [at] kitty5com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3d57ab88$1@news.povray.org...
> Theo Gottwald * wrote:
> > For future successors we can dream from a POV 5 that can get
> > rendertime from another user anywhere in the world ... (Its not
> > filesharing ... its ray-sharing :-) ....
>
> Stuff waiting for 5, a 4 rewrite is due - how about writing it from
scratch
> as a p2p ray server?
>
>
> --
> Rick
>
> Kitty5 NewMedia http://Kitty5.co.uk
> POV-Ray News & Resources http://Povray.co.uk
> TEL : +44 (01270) 501101 - FAX : +44 (01270) 251105 - ICQ : 15776037
>
> PGP Public Key
> http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/2002
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Theo Gottwald * wrote:
> 
> [...]
> However, I believe that next generation computers can render nearly anything
> as fast as necessary.

... and 640k of memory is more than anyone will ever need.

scnr

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,                 
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/  
Last updated 03 Aug. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

I guess Bill G. agreed with you some time ago ... :-)


"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3D57BC11.1DA5AC40@gmx.de...
>
>
> Theo Gottwald * wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > However, I believe that next generation computers can render nearly
anything
> > as fast as necessary.
>
> ... and 640k of memory is more than anyone will ever need.
>
> scnr
>
> Christoph
>
> --
> POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,
> TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
> Last updated 03 Aug. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 15:37:44 +0200, "Theo Gottwald *"
<The### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
>However, I believe that next generation computers can render nearly anything
>as fast as necessary.

Hah! I've been messing around with POV-Ray for 10+ years and the only
thing added cpu power does is to make things that was too heavy
bearable. You still end up with more or less the same render-times,
you can just do more computationally intensive scenes. Once 320x200
was high-res, AA was only for the final trace and stuff like media and
radiosity was a pipe dream. Now I have at least 200 times as much cpu
power and it's still relatively easy to design scenes that takes days
to render, same as the old days. The scenes just look a bit nicer :-)

/Erkki

Post a reply to this message

Well, since PovRay 3.5, you get 35% performance increase on Pentium(r) 4,
you can increase the quality of it by 35% :-P

seriously, Moore's Law will not finish soon, so, every 18 months, you get
double processing power, and I don't think it will never be enough.

Francois



"Erkki Søndergaard" <Erk### [at] povrayorg> wrote in message
news:3d59061f.171986132@news.povray.org...
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 15:37:44 +0200, "Theo Gottwald *"
> <The### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> >However, I believe that next generation computers can render nearly
anything
> >as fast as necessary.
>
> Hah! I've been messing around with POV-Ray for 10+ years and the only
> thing added cpu power does is to make things that was too heavy
> bearable. You still end up with more or less the same render-times,
> you can just do more computationally intensive scenes. Once 320x200
> was high-res, AA was only for the final trace and stuff like media and
> radiosity was a pipe dream. Now I have at least 200 times as much cpu
> power and it's still relatively easy to design scenes that takes days
> to render, same as the old days. The scenes just look a bit nicer :-)
>
> /Erkki

Post a reply to this message

Theo Gottwald * wrote:
> I doubt most people want to sent their scene-files through the net for
> getting them rendered piece by piece.

it can be done in such a way that the person donating the cpu time sees the
rendering image however all source code is inaccessable....

> However, I believe that next generation computers can render nearly
> anything as fast as necessary.

I have been poving for years, my renders took all night on a 486sx25, and
they still take all night on my p3-650 - in fact the last few have taken
DAYS (one of the reasons I have not poved in a while)

> However, rendertime-sharing could be an option for an future release.

I say start with it as main feature, that way the implamentation will be
ideal and not some tagged on after thaught - something like this would drive
povray well beyond the realm of all current 3d render engines.

--
Rick

Kitty5 NewMedia http://Kitty5.co.uk
POV-Ray News & Resources http://Povray.co.uk
TEL : +44 (01270) 501101 - FAX : +44 (01270) 251105 - ICQ : 15776037

PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA



---

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/2002

Post a reply to this message

I've just tried to render NEWDIFFRACT with a dispersion value of 120.
Thats even with my 6,4 GHz System really slow.
Maybe I agree ... :-)))

However - even if NVIDIA makes it true and does raytracing in hardware
WHO doesn't want to render "New York from the air" (many object ...).

So we are back again that NO computer ever will be fast enough ...

--Theo

"Erkki Søndergaard" <Erk### [at] povrayorg> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3d59061f.171986132@news.povray.org...
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 15:37:44 +0200, "Theo Gottwald *"
> <The### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> >However, I believe that next generation computers can render nearly
anything
> >as fast as necessary.
>
> Hah! I've been messing around with POV-Ray for 10+ years and the only
> thing added cpu power does is to make things that was too heavy
> bearable. You still end up with more or less the same render-times,
> you can just do more computationally intensive scenes. Once 320x200
> was high-res, AA was only for the final trace and stuff like media and
> radiosity was a pipe dream. Now I have at least 200 times as much cpu
> power and it's still relatively easy to design scenes that takes days
> to render, same as the old days. The scenes just look a bit nicer :-)
>
> /Erkki

Post a reply to this message

Intresting to hear that in the P IV the bottleneck is NOT in the execution
units.
However its believable. 35% Sounds really more then I have expected.

Hopefully you've implemented this system in the upcoming Unreal Tournament 2
also :-). If this game will have SMP-Support I am shure many people will go
and buy the new P IV.
As I said before: the market needs the "Multi-CPU" Technology cause the
today processors use
a lot of calculation power for branch-prediction and pre-calculations that
get never "real".

Then at last there is the "chicken-and-egg" question: There is no
SMP-Software
also noone buys SMP-Hardware.

So we can be happy about any program and any new step that goes into this
direction.

About the SMPOV-Program:

1. I have translated the page into english so its better understandable !

2. You can download the "exe"-Files to test on your systems/Network
    which speed increase you get this way. I hope you have W2k.

3. http://www.it-berater.org/smpov.htm

4. It's to proof that this system works, it gives a significant speed
increase and all the pic's I have rendered so far have been ok.

5. The next version is more in english and its already "on the way".
(Animation support !)

6. It's compatible with any future version of POV-Ray, thats what I want.

7. It will also support your SMP-Version (however it should run on my Dual
PIII as well :-).

--Theo




"Francois Piednoel" <fra### [at] intelcom> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3d5827f1@news.povray.org...
> Well, since PovRay 3.5, you get 35% performance increase on Pentium(r) 4,
> you can increase the quality of it by 35% :-P
>
> seriously, Moore's Law will not finish soon, so, every 18 months, you get
> double processing power, and I don't think it will never be enough.
>
> Francois
>
>
>
> "Erkki Søndergaard" <Erk### [at] povrayorg> wrote in message
> news:3d59061f.171986132@news.povray.org...
> > On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 15:37:44 +0200, "Theo Gottwald *"
> > <The### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> > >However, I believe that next generation computers can render nearly
> anything
> > >as fast as necessary.
> >
> > Hah! I've been messing around with POV-Ray for 10+ years and the only
> > thing added cpu power does is to make things that was too heavy
> > bearable. You still end up with more or less the same render-times,
> > you can just do more computationally intensive scenes. Once 320x200
> > was high-res, AA was only for the final trace and stuff like media and
> > radiosity was a pipe dream. Now I have at least 200 times as much cpu
> > power and it's still relatively easy to design scenes that takes days
> > to render, same as the old days. The scenes just look a bit nicer :-)
> >
> > /Erkki
>
>

Post a reply to this message