Am 09.05.2010 07:50, schrieb MDenham:

>>> Presently, "maximum_reuse" will quietly win over "minimum_reuse" without
>>> any warning.
>>
>> I think that's an acceptable beaviour. The only change I see would be
>> the isuing of a warning in that case.
>>
>>
>> Alain
> Actually, if it's setting both the maximum and minimum reuse to the same value,
> it's basically saying "only reuse if it's within (arbitrary small float value)
> of maximum_reuse".
>
> In effect, it mostly disables reusing of samples, with exceptions that aren't
> necessarily reproducible on systems of different architecture (like, say, if
> someone were inclined to make a build of POV-Ray for the XBox 360, since pretty
> much everyone else is using an Intel or AMD processor).

No, that's not what it does.

As the person who overhauled the radiosity code for v3.7, and 
implemented the code to expose this parameter to the user, I guess I 
know a bit about the matter ;-)

You are right that there is indeed a mechanism in place to suppress 
samples that would be "too small" (i.e. too close to other objects) to 
be useful, and also that this mechanism's threshold is currently tied to 
the maximum_reuse parameter; however, that's not the main purpose of the 
parameter, nor is there any corresponding minimum_reuse-related 
mechanism discarding samples that would be "too large" (such samples are 
just "trimmed down" in size, /after/ having been subjected to the "too 
small"-test).

Post a reply to this message