Roger

You could also fake it. Maybe you could use a projection map and/or volumetric lights?

That's disappointing. Part of the reason I bought my 480 was for compute, disappointed now that I can only use it for single-point precision FP. I couldn't afford to spend double on a graphics card for the same functionality.

Bug report?

GPUboss.com shows the fury pretty close to the 480: http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-RX-480-vs-Radeon-R9-FURY Fury has better floating point, though. FWIW, I recently upgraded to a 480 and I'm happy with it. Haven't yet used with AM.

We have those in the US too: https://www.humblebundle.com/yogscast-jingle-jam My family also celebrates on Christmas eve. Sometimes we go to another relative's house, other times we stay home and then go to my aunt or cousin's house Christmas day.

I must be missing something incredibly obvious because I haven't figured out any way to make pine branches with the Treez plugin, only deciduous type trees.

I dimly recall that my Win2K machine stopped running the alphas I was getting from Steffan at either v16 or 17. He went to a new compiler and Win 2K was not supported so i needed to build a new machine at that point. By that time everyone was on Win 7. Really? Win 9X/NT/2k support continued through v16? That's a pretty long run.

Ok, I think I have a really good start at a pine branch here, what do you guys think? Now I just need to clone a few hundred of these to build my tree. Too bad I can't turn them into some sort of fractal hair emitter, that might make it quicker.

Well I just checked and I was quite surprised to find out that the Dennis CD is Win 9X/NT/Win 2k kernel. What version was the switchover to XP?

Well I'm going to do both the twinkling lights and the old-school, I think. I've been playing around with generating a pine tree via the Treez plugin and so far I'm not happy with the results, I don't really think it is meant for conifers/evergreens, and due to the nature of the branch and trunk style I think it may be better to just model the trunk and branches separately.

I don't really need to do either. I haven't decided if I want to go old-school lights or if I want to do the mini lights. Maybe I will do a mix, or try both and see which I like better.

So I've got a good start here on an old-school Christmas light. Not sure if I should add a point source light to it in addition to the glow material.

What year was version 10.5? Would it run under 95/98/NT? The oldest version of AM I have that is still marked as running on those is AM 99. I have the CD with Dennis the Wolf on it, that is the year 2000 CD which I thought was v12? I'm pretty sure that one had some major updates in terms of functionality. The reason I'm looking for something that will run under Win 9X/NT 4.0 (or worst case, Win 2k) is I need something that is fairly low resource, for purposes of my experiment.

Well, in theory, it should be possible to emulate an x86 system on another platform, so I was thinking of emulating a 500mhz pentium and attendant hardware on an android tablet, just to see if I can. If that does not work, then I'd like to try running an older version of AM on a lower-end modern Windows tablet (say some sort of Intel Atom based device).

Which version of AM was the 1999 year version? Was that 8 or 9? I remember 9 as being the buggy version, and the 1999 year version is the most recent one I have that still supported Win 95/98 and NT. I've been planning on experimenting with an older version of AM in a vm on Linux and Android and I thought those versions might be lightweight enough to manage it, but still have a more modern feature set (in terms of having unibody models, hooks, 5 point patches, etc).

Weekdays are generally bad for me. Saturday or Sunday is pretty much it. Unless we did a Friday morning around 10:00 am or 11:00 am cst.

I'm up for this, count me in.

The Sapphire R480 looks to be pretty competitive with the Geforce 1060. Only mark against it is it runs at about 150 watts full tilt compared to 75 for the Nvidia card. Going to be hard waiting for Black Friday / Cyber Monday this year.

Basically this is what I use: AM, Davinci Resolve, Fusion, Krita, Adobe CS I think all those support both but Open CL may be the better option for me. Plus the AMD card in my price range has more memory than the Nividia model.

I know that AM does not directly support either, but we all use other apps besides AM. Which do you figure would be more beneficial in the long run, CUDA support or Open CL? It looks like both Davinci Resolve and Fusion support both, as well as Adobe Creative Suite but Open CL seems to have a bit more 3rd party support. I'm looking at a possible video card upgrade and having a hard time deciding between AMD and Nvidia.

I saw this the other day too, on some tech site or other. I think it will be interesting to see what changes they've made to MS Paint.

I think monthly contests would be tough to do, but what about quarterly contests, where one of those is the mascot contest? (when appropriate, I know we just had a mascot contest, so these would only happen obviously when a new release is out) I do think these help keep the community together but I also realize the amount of time that goes into organizing them is not trivial.

Any updates?

I really shouldn't have waited so long to get started on this one. Looks like I'm going to end up with another "Fumble-bee" class entry.

Yeah SGI was seriously overpriced. Part of that is that you were getting a system at the time that was ten years ahead of everything else (this was true until about the late 90s, with the advent of affordable 3d accelerators for PC and the Pentium II and III processors). Once you could put together a $2000-$3000 PC that could compete with a $20000 workstation, it was game over for them. If they'd had a clue they would have made add-in graphics boards for PCs instead of driving away all their engineering talent to Nvidia and ATI. I remember thinking that my 486-133 wasn't that much worse than an R4000 Indigo once I finally got to use one in college. The only thing my 486 couldn't do was the real-time lighting and shading, but in terms of throwing polys around on the screen it was probably close to a low-end Indigo, maybe the R3000 class. I'd have to look up benchmarks but I remember being not that impressed. **edit** OK strictly speaking I figure an R4400-150 Indigo has a similar MIPS rating as a high end 486, the edge would come in with the graphics board. So the ones I used in college must have been the low end R3000 ones, or they were the lower speed 100mhz R4400 models with entry graphics. I just remember that it felt roughly similar in speed in terms of moving raw polygons around on the screen. A Pentium Pro or PII with a Riva TNT or Geforce 256 would surely have demolished an Indigo and start creeping in on Octane territory.