"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> "Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > (took 140 hours to render at 2000x2000 - eek!)
>
> Sounds to me like a case of "ur doin' it wrong": I see nothing in that shot that
> would justify such a long render time.

Yes, it's entirely possible. However, refining the render time would probably
take me several evenings' tinkering with the source, whereas if I just did
something else during that time it's half finished anyway. :) The isosurface
floor could probably use a smaller max_gradient, I could certainly get away
with a lower-res area_light, radiosity quality may well be too high, and I seem
to recall that the default media sampling (which this uses) is unwise. Including
the media seemed to produce the biggest slow-down... and, of course, merely
activating the aa on a scene like this is a huge drag.

(2000x2000 is also 4x the pixels posted here, but I guess you twigged that!)

Post a reply to this message