>> Don't forget you can always use the "no_cache" option (I think uberPOV
>> only?) to get a "reference" image. See attached, that took about 25 mins
>> on my machine using "count 10" and "recursion_limit 3". You'd obviously
>> need higher settings to get rid of the graininess, but at least then
>> you'd have something to compare the radiosity version with.
>
> Though I know about "no_cache" feature, I am not sure I know what it does
> exactly.

It provides an "unbiased" result - meaning that (assuming you use enough 
samples) there is nothing in the algorithm used that will give rise to 
any error in each pixel value. Even with far too few samples (as in my 
image) the error is purely random noise in each pixel, there are no 
systematic errors possible like bright or dark splotches.

> The point /IS/ to get rid of /ALL/ graininess and splotched, at high
> resolution.

Use "no_cache" with a high number of samples and just let it run. With 
traditional radiosity, even after a lot of parameter tweaking, there is 
always the risk you have a bright/dark area somewhere that you don't 
notice is there. That's why I suggested using "no_cache" to generate a 
reference image to compare the traditional radiosity versions with. 
Doing a "difference" in a graphics package should make it obvious if 
there are any splotches of dark/light where there shouldn't be.

Post a reply to this message