(1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA248161892; Tue, 15 Aug 1995 22:44:55 -0700
Return-Path: <owner-lightwave@webcom.webcom.com>
Received: from nova.unix.portal.com by webcom.webcom.com with ESMTP
(1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA247981880; Tue, 15 Aug 1995 22:44:42 -0700
Received: from hobo.online.portal.com (hobo.online.portal.com [156.151.5.5]) by nova.unix.portal.com (8.6.11/8.6.5) with ESMTP id WAA16511 for <lightwave@webcom.com>; Tue, 15 Aug 1995 22:35:31 -0700
From: Jeric@cup.portal.com
Received: (pccop@localhost) by hobo.online.portal.com (8.6.10/8.6.5) id WAA26960 for lightwave@webcom.com; Tue, 15 Aug 1995 22:35:31 -0700
To: lightwave@webcom.webcom.com
Subject: Re: Yet another PAR question...
Lines: 19
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 95 22:35:30 PDT
Message-Id: <9508152235.2.26911@cup.portal.com>
X-Origin: The Portal System (TM)
Sender: owner-lightwave@webcom.webcom.com
Precedence: bulk
>By the way, for better results, do not render frames 1-100 on the first
>computer and frames 101-200 on the second. What works better is to tell
>computer #1 to do frames 1-199, frame step = 2, so it does all the odd
>frames, and tell computer #2 to do frames 2-200, frame step = 2, so it does
>all the even frames. That way, the two computers stay fairly neck-and-neck
>as far as the rendering go.
Is this superior somehow to having them start at both ends and meet
in the middle?
>johnc@mcs.com (John Crookshank) sent this message.