Received: from relay6.UU.NET (relay6.UU.NET [192.48.96.16]) by keeper.albany.net (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id MAA07456 for <dwarner@albany.net>; Mon, 22 Jan 1996 12:33:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from garcia.com by relay6.UU.NET with SMTP
id QQzzqj00505; Mon, 22 Jan 1996 12:28:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (localhost) by garcia.com (5.x/SMI-SVR4)
id AA17086; Mon, 22 Jan 1996 12:28:16 -0500
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 12:28:16 -0500
Errors-To: dwarner@albany.net
Message-Id: <199601221715.MAA04843@grtk>
Errors-To: dwarner@albany.net
Reply-To: lightwave@garcia.com
Originator: lightwave@garcia.com
Sender: lightwave@garcia.com
Precedence: bulk
From: nkelly@grtk.com (Nathan Kelly - GTC)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lightwave@garcia.com>
Subject: Rev C and NT rendering times
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status:
Hi all;
A quick question. I wondered if anyone out there noticed a
rendering time increase going from rev b to rev c. I've been using the
Blade.lws scene 54 as my speed reference. with rev B software my triton
P100 with 32 meg of ram renders to a complete finished preview in 13 minutes
and 9 seconds . This is with all defaults on the blade scene load active
except field rendering and with 2.2 meg segmants and preview on. With rev c
i'm now at 14 minutes and 40 seconds. any idea why? I was wondering if the
triton board, which always rendered about 1.5 to 2 minutes quicker than a
friends system (p100) running lightwave, that i'm using was taking advantage
of something in the rev b code which has been removed for rev c software.
My friend has made the change to 95 instead of NT (so i can't compare NT
times) now but his rendering times are right at 15 minutes for the same
blade scene running 95 . I'm not complaining mind you i'm just wondering.
Maybe somebody from Newtek, monitoring the list, could lend some insight.
Thanks Also i just bought sparks as a plugin and it seems to work great.
I'm not familar enough with it yet to give a "review" but it seems easy to
use and seems to have the features (as a plug in ) that i've read particle
storm has ie. basic collision detection between objects and particles and a
preview capability (since it runs from layout). I bought it for $167.00
which seems like an excelent price. I'd like to hear from anyone whose
worked with both to see which is better (i own a copy of impact - a great
program by the way - so i'm not playing favorites). please excuse the
spelling i haven't added a spell checker to Eudora yet. Also if you have
any direct comments please send them directly to me as well as the list
since i monitor it in digest format and it may be a couple of days before i
