"Xplo Eristotle" <xpl### [at] infomagiccom> wrote in message
news:3B1F1F1B.CEF515FD@infomagic.com...
> Nekar Xenos wrote:
> >
> > "Xplo Eristotle" <xpl### [at] infomagiccom> wrote in message
> > news:3B1D8CC3.8DE0937E@infomagic.com...
> > >
> > > If you imagine radiosity as being like shading being applied to the
> > > scene with a brush and diluted black ink, it becomes fairly easy to
> > > understand.. well, for me anyway. (This analogy is kind of a butchery of
> > > the way radiosity ACTUALLY works, but it's a fair description of its
> > > effect on a scene.)
>
> (snip)
>
> > Thanks for this explanation. I've understood the basic principle of
radiosity
> > without really knowing how to use it. This will really help me to use it
better.
>
> Just keep in mind that when you use radiosity, you're *adding*
> illumination to the scene, not darkening it! The shadows that get
> "painted" on are, in actuality, the holes in the light. ;)
>

When I first heard of raytracing I assumed that non-reflective objects where
done with some sort of 'radiosity' method (though I hadn't heard of the term
radiosity) and I always wondered how they got everything looking so flat!

How are non-reflective objects don anyway? Does the ray just stop if it doesn't
hit a light off the surface? Trying to imagine it, it almost seems like
ray-tracing with radiosity would be easier than without radiosity!  I guess an
easy cheat method is used?

- Nekar

Post a reply to this message