|
 |
On 03/23/2017 05:54 AM, muyu wrote:
> William F Pokorny <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
>> On 03/20/2017 10:30 AM, muyu wrote:
>
> Thanks. The Monte Carlo simulation was generated by other softwares. I did not
> know much details about it. But they were considered as the reference to
> evaluate other methods.
>
> 1) Disc of negligible thickness...the same as in the Monte Carlo methods.
>
> 2) Now my simulations using Pov-ray radiosity were around 5 to 10% lower than
> the reference even I set the recursion time as 20. I am wondering if Pov-ray
> miss some physical processes or I can further improve the accuracy by tunning
> some parameters. Brightness or light intensity etc...?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Shouyang
>
>
>
Christoph (clipka) & others understand the light and color modeling in
POV-Ray far better than me. I know for example there are various diffuse
models, but not in detail how they differ. See for example :
http://news.povray.org/povray.unofficial.patches/thread/%3C57be5290%241%40news.povray.org%3E/
for a pointer to an alternate version of POV-Ray (uber) offering
additional methods.
Without knowing more about the standard simulation against which you are
comparing, we're of course doing a good deal of guessing as to what
might be different.
...
How much does POV-Ray itself vary run to run on changing the (random
within a container?) disc placements? Is this difference reflected by
the 5-10% range you mention or is this change due changes in other
"leaf" parameters?
Another thought. With your POV-Ray disc placement are you avoiding
collisions? If not, might the standard method be?
If I think of something else, I'll post.
Bill P.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
