clipka wrote:
> Your idea to use no_image instead of removing the objects is a
> near-perfect solution. I guess it will have performance drawbacks in 3.6
> (because bounding-box intersection tests will probably be done before
> checking for the no_image flag), but in 3.7 even this should be a
> non-issue. (Well, there's still a performance drawback, but it should be
> marginal.)

I don't understand why no_image has different radiosity results than taking
the object out...

Post a reply to this message