Mike Raiford wrote:

> I looked. I remember that gallery. 18 hours on one of the archetecture.
> Essentially set it, then come back the next day, and you might have a
> nice image. :)

Actually, you'll have a good image in less than 1 hour. After 18h it is
very good :=)

> I could see an architect using them to do a true physical light
> simulation on a building design, using various lighting schemes/time of
> day, etc.. But for creating "photorealistic" rendered images, my bets
> are still on raytracers, they're not a physically accurate simulation,
> but they do a decent approximation.

What do you mean "your bets are on"? Brute forcers give always better
looking results. Nobody can claim anything else. The only problem is the
time it takes to get to decent noise levels. So other than speed my bet
on photorealistic images are, of course, on brute-forcers. And we know
how the situation looks after few years of multi-core CPU development :)

Post a reply to this message