|
|
Le 2021-02-17 à 08:23, William F Pokorny a écrit :
> On 2/15/21 6:58 PM, Alain Martel wrote:
>> Le 2021-02-15 à 06:00, William F Pokorny a écrit :
>>
>>> (a) For the purposes of documentation see (a1) and ignore the rest of
>>> this footnote. Someone can set the intervals in method 3 to more than
>>> 1 and if they do ratio does come into play with a lit and un-lit
>>> intervals scheme internally which 'probably' doesn't have much of an
>>> end effect for method 3, but... Always true, sometimes, almost never,
>>> never? Not sure... When using multiple medias with mixed sampling
>>> types, I know of some bleed through in the keyword settings between
>>> methods.
>>>
>>> Bill P.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> This probably explain why using several intervals bog down method 3 so
>> much. It tries to compute ratios and variances when it's not needed.
>
> Only ratios(a) I believe, but yes, expect this a part of the typical
> slow down (always? sometimes not?). I don't understand all the whys.
>
> The most obvious reason is the number of interval acts as a multiplier
> for the starting number of samples with method 3 and this is 10.
>
> (a) and the underlying light interval stuff. This code is tied to light
> types. My guess is it's aimed at speeding up (or better resolving
> perhaps?) spotlights and cylindrical lighting when using media(a1).
> Maybe it all more or less works - but I have doubts about how well
> beyond the simplest test set ups. I'd like to pull all the lit/unlit
> interval code out too.
>
> Bill P.
In my testings, intervals 5 samples 10 run MUCH slower than samples 100
and default intervals 1.
Post a reply to this message
|
|