CompuServe Messages

Timothy, Oops, sorry; credit where credit is due, and all that. I think I was going on my 16th hour straight at the keyboard when I wrote that — the 4:04 time on the offending message was A.M.! (Been modelling my a** off!) I'm not entirely sure about this, but I _think_ the reason you see the different rendering times is that the screen-bottom line and time in the status pull-down both include the time it took to load the maps, but the last-frame time in the render dialog box doesn't. Once again not sure, but to the best of my knowledge the render engine didn't change from R3 to R4 (Part of the reason they were calling R4 the plug-in upgrade.) I'm going to try 1280×1024, Metal, Alpha on, Pixel Size 1.5, on my 486/66 to see how slow it is… I think that having multiple .PRJs would only lead to confusion and negate half of the reason for doing this to begin with. BTW, I see two main reasons: (1) To compare relative times of different CPUs (2) So those interested can compare their times with others' in the same CPU class. If you'd rather not try it on your 486, that's OK — we really don't need to go hog-wild in compiling stats on the old stuff… But a few'd be good for comparison purposes. I keep hoping somebody that still has a functioning 386 will try it for the sake of the archive, so 10 years from now we can look back (probably on CIS-VR by then <g>). The manual says R4'll run on a 386 if you've got 16 megs. Well, back to the mines. Let me know what you think about this… SCL