[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: povray



Francesco

On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 17:03 +0200, Francesco Pietra wrote: 
> Has anyone tried to install povray debian package and run it on either a 32bit 
> machine or a chroot on amd64?

I have.

> I would like to embellish with povray a series 
> of lectures.

In fact I used pvray to bench mark the performace difference between a
32-bit system I had and my new 64-bit toy :-)  The answer was about 40%
quicker and my 64-bit is not tuned yet - I need that second bank of
memory.  I presented those result to the local LUG in a talk on going
64-bit.  One slid held two pictures, one generated on a 32-bit system,
one on the 64.  You could't tell them apart.

>  I tried on a 32bit etch debian machine. Apparently it installs 
> correctly, however I was unable to get command lines accepted.

I've not had a problem with povray-3.5. the version in sid.  This is the
version output for a quick test I did just ran to check (it took about 5
secs to render).

    Persistence of Vision(tm) Ray Tracer Version 3.5.0c-10 (Debian
                                                  x86_64-linux-gcc)

     This is an unofficial version compiled by:
      Jeroen van Wolffelaar <jeroen@wolffelaar.nl> for Debian         
                                                   (www.debian.org)
  The POV-Ray Team(tm) is not responsible for supporting this version.

The debian packages page[1] shows that this same version is available
for amd64, i386 & powerpc.

If you want I can e-mail you that test file (7.1K) and the povray.ini
file as well to you to test the set up your end.

I hope this is more useful than the stuff to got from the povray team.
However, I am a bit worried I too have missed something as all I am
really saying is "here go install povray-3.5 it works".  Have I missed
some new "must have" feature in 3.6?

Steve

[1]
http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_packages.pl?keywords=povray-3.5&searchon=names&subword=1&version=all&release=all




Reply to: