"clipka" <ano### [at] anonymousorg> schreef in bericht 
news:4a9fe4fe$1@news.povray.org...
> The reason appears to be a humongous amount of crackle cache data: The 
> crackle pattern is only semi-procedural, requiring random values to be 
> computed and cached for subsequent queries, with a fixed amount of data 
> per unit-cube in crackle pattern coordinate space. Using crackle for 
> micronormals is therefore a bad idea: Scaled smaller than the density of 
> actual ray-object-intersections computed, it will eventually lead to a 
> separate crackle cache entry being created for each and every 
> intersection. Memory consumption will then grow with every additional ray 
> being traced, which is fatal with e.g. focal blur or dispersion that 
> create a huge amount of rays per pixel.
>

Ah! It is good to be reminded of this. The crackle issue has come up earlier 
already, but I confess that I almost forgot about it and so am often using 
crackle in a micro normal. Thanks Christoph.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message