Re: [Boost-users] [Thread] Beginner question regarding thread groups

From: Mike Marchywka (marchywka_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-08-25 12:52:33

Are any of the intro papers on google available as free, full text? That is my reason for going
to citeseer  ( as it turns out they even seem to allow text format download )  
AFAIK all of the papers are available for free(IEEE is about the worst in terms of 
open access, including for searching with scripts or using computer methods,LOL). 

Are these all homogeneous materials with a few planar discontinuities ?
Offhand it seems you could do a lot analytically with classical geometrical
optics.

> Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:43:48 -0700
> From: michel.lestrade_at_[hidden]
> To: boost-users_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [Thread] Beginner question regarding thread groups
>
> Hi,
>
> Actually, I probably was not clear before: only the refracted ray will
> be a new ray on the queue: the reflected ray continues on its merry way
> until it decays. That is probably the same thing as what you are suggesting.
>
> The reason I was vague before is that I have two options: follow the
> reflected ray and spawn new refracted rays (as above) or follow the
> refracted ray ans spawn the reflected rays. I expect solution #1 is
> better in terms of locality but #2 might result in a smaller queue since
> internal reflection coefficients are small (i.e. you often wind up
> dropping the reflected ray since it no longer carries any significant
> power). Right now, the code is using #1 but I was considering switching
> to see what effects it might have...
>
>> It may be possible to do fairly well on locality by on a split, rather
>> than putting both new rays into the queue and doing a new fetch from
>> the queue, continuing on with the ray most similar to the incident
>> ray, only adding the other ray(s?) to the queue, so the frame of
>> reference only jumps when a ray dies. (Not unlike half-tailing
>> quicksort.)
>>
> ===========================
>
> We actually almost always develop in Fortran except for the GUI parts.
> That comes from our company background in physics and the large amount
> of existing code we have ... But yes, the code is old and mostly written
> in fixed-form F77. I am at least trying to modernize some parts to use
> free-form F90/F95 syntax :)
>
> I actually have not taken a look recently at these papers since I always
> worked directly on the code. Hopefully, there is something of interest
> in there.
>
>> Thanks, I always ask people to post links to their work since it makes things more interesting
>> and I'll look as soon as I can. I thought the code may be a bit old given the language
>
> Regards,
>
> Michel Lestrade
> Crosslight Software
> _______________________________________________
> Boost-users mailing list
> Boost-users_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users

_________________________________________________________________
Be the filmmaker you always wanted to be—learn how to burn a DVD with Windows®.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/108588797/direct/01/