Oh go for a wild one. I don't think a dragon looks right with a saddle and harness.
Printable View
Oh go for a wild one. I don't think a dragon looks right with a saddle and harness.
Ya I kind of like the independent Dragon idea myself [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
Oh ya It has 26000 polys thus far [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]
Stu.
ooo hey that's looking really nice Stu. Can't wait to see it textured.
Say? You plannin' on attaching some bones to that too? Or does your version of C4D not use those (due to lack of animation tools)...?
Oh and PS to Jens: I have WinXP now, but when i had Win98, i never once had C4D crash on me. If YOU did, then i'd wonder about your graphics card; and whether you were using the OpenGL options in the prefs. :P
"The lessons to be learned, are found along the path of your journey, not at your final destination. That is only where you will rest, between lessons"
Thanks Mark [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]
I am going to bone it......try to bone it [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]
I have had XL7 for months now Mark.....you is working to hard bud [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
Stu.
Mark,
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Oh and PS to Jens: I have WinXP now, but when i had Win98, i never once had C4D crash on me. If YOU did, then i'd wonder about your graphics card; and whether you were using the OpenGL options in the prefs. :P <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I abandoned win98 2 years ago and I'm more than happy with W2K Pro since that time. All my (our) machines are equipped with W2K Pro. Graphics card on my 'old' system was a nVidia and on the laptop a Neomagic. Worked fine so far, but every time I surpassed a certain amount of polygons, it crashed.
XP: is it a home version? Just asking because my brother came back from the US with a new machine and XP home. Holy Moly, he had nothing else but trouble, so I re-formatted the hard drive and installed W2K Pro. Getting all the drivers for the new devices for W2K Pro was a hassle, but now it's running smooth as silk. And FAST. XP is 30% slower than W2K Pro... I did read some stuff about it and finally installed XP Pro on one of my machines. Hell, after 20 minutes I reformatted the drive !
OpenGL: if you are using Rhino, OpenGL is great. But not with C4D XL unless you have an Oxygen or something similar in your machine (around US$ 1.500 retail in Europe). OpenGL 1.3 won't fix the problem either.
You might check your BIOS: set the spread spectrum to at least +- 0.25%. If it's set to 0 with more than 256 megs RAM (especially those with latency 2), you are in trouble because as soon as the OpenGL engine will start (for standard graphic cards this is a software!), the machines needs more power and the CPU clock will go down just a tiny bit. So you need the tolerance of +- 0.25%...
Oh, this problem is well known with Athlons, but with certain models of Intel as well. And if you should have a VIA chipset, get the latest drivers...
jens
jens g.r. benthien
designer
http://jens.highspeedweb.net
----------//--
If you don't know how to dream you'll never be a designer.
----------//--
Thanks for the extra info Jens, very interesting.
I'm using WinXP Pro.
You really prefer W2K huh?
hmmm...
I could setup a dualboot and check it out perhaps, but i'm not into giving MicroSpunge my cash just to "research" one of their many spasmatic OSes.
"Home" versions of any OSes are for the ill of heart, and those needing a 'guided tour' everytime they want to do something with their system. I'm not a fan of these. I'd rather suffer TBSOD than be coddled by the OS.
I have an nVidia card also -- dumped the ATI Rage Fury 128. nVidea are so much more effecient all-round -- including driver updates.
I have a Pentium III chip. Haven't looked at that specific setting in the BIOS though. I'll check that out, thanks.
Say is that setting also applicable to the use of OpenGL for 3D gaming? Would it effect the playability of the game maybe? I'm curious about that aspect of this info.
"The lessons to be learned, are found along the path of your journey, not at your final destination. That is only where you will rest, between lessons"
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Say is that setting also applicable to the use of OpenGL for 3D gaming? Would it effect the playability of the game maybe? I'm curious about that aspect of this info. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, it wouldn't. Games don't use OpenGL at all, unless they are specifically designed for it. There are only a few OpenGL games on the market. Most of them use DirectX or better saying 'exploit' it, because it's faster and better suited for games. Which - to confuse you even more - doesn't mean that OpenGL is not fast - it sure is, but not for games.
However, you might check the settings of your OpenGL config (right click your desktop -> properties). For OpenGL an additional use of around 5 megs of the system memory will be more than enough. Higher settings might slow down the performance of your system when running OpenGL.
BTW, if you don't play any games at all (which you really should avoid on a professional system), you shouldn't install DirectX at all - it won't increase the system performance at all for non-game apps.
OpenGL doesn't increase the performance of C4D unless you have an Oxygen or similar card. The built-in acceleration of C4D is faster: it redraws the active window only, whereas OpenGL - based on the nature of this technology - will have to redraw the whole screen, even if you modify only a small portion in the active window. This takes considerably more time and valuable CPU power.
Keep in mind that OpenGL for 'normal' graphic subsystems is a software solution. The hardware solution with real OpenGL cards is 50 to 100 times faster, but you can't play games with it at all. In addition the hardware solution doesn't support OpenGL games - they have a different subset of internal instructions.
A recent test showed that the truly expensive OpenGL cards are not faster compared to a standard nVidia card if they run in normal mode.
Weird world. I used to have a professional graphics card on one of my old systems with an MX chip. Was it worth it? No, except for the higher resolutions it could produce (at times when other cards had been limited to 1024 x 768 this was an advantage, but nowadays the standard cards with 2048 x 1536 can't be beat anymore...
jens
jens g.r. benthien
designer
http://jens.highspeedweb.net
----------//--
If you don't know how to dream you'll never be a designer.
----------//--
Heres a close up of the head with a quick bump and displacement map [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]
Stu.
wowsers Kiwi, you sure make it look easy, which it ain't...lol
I can hardly wait to see this guy all painted up...and then comes the animation...man o man what a project...you are sure one patient type of individual... [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
Keep up the great worx Kiwi... [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]
You know guys, I often wonder about why it is that different systems have different rates of stability ( now that sounds foolish doesn't it ), but seriously though...I recently sold a P111 667 back to where I purchased it, took a slight loss, but much of the reason why I sold it was that it just was not as stable as my baby (266) celeron...
I run 98 se, and had the same os and programs loaded on both machines, same ram type and amounts, same video card ( ATI rage 128 )...etc. , yet I was met with the blue screen too many times on the P111, while the wee celery chugs right on through... I sort of wonder if it has anything to do with the celery having no L2 cache ? Other than the chip set and processor, all else was the same in both systems... hmmm ??
As I don't do much other than web related designing, the wee machine chugs along just fine indeed, and when ever I do challenge myself with the odd graphic that needs special effects etc I find things go right along in most 2D apps, in fact the only time that I find myself hurting is when doing 3D work and even then only when rendering....then it is truly a go get something to eat situation...lol
[This message was edited by gidgit on April 07, 2002 at 15:10.]
gidgit,
I agree that sometimes what would seem to be a much better system meets all too often with crashes, lockups, BSOD's and the like, while what might be considered a humble machine runs smoothly for weeks on end with no instabilities. PC construction involves a bit of voodoo, smoke & mirrors to get all the hardware to cooperate (consider that there are different manufacturers making every piece of the PC: case, power supply, motherboard, chipset, processor, memory, cables, optical drives, etc.). I am a firm believer that when one finds a PC that runs smoothly for long periods of time, KEEP IT! The newer, faster, better might/might not save you time!
Stu, how about a wireframe cap of the dragon? Interested to see the mesh...
Nice work so far!
Brett