"Mike Hough" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> If anyone has any suggestions for how I might alter the settings to improve
> the render I would be happy to rerun this test.

- Reduce the nearest_count to 1. There is no point in using any other value
anyway that could not be achieved by modifying the low_error_factor just as
well. Although little known, this was true for 3.6 likewise.

- Increase low_error_factor; having this set to a low value may have helped in
3.6 to reduce artifact "strength", but should no longer be required in
3.7.0.beta.30-rad1. A value of 0.5 should be perfectly fine now in most cases.

Note that with a nearest_count of 10 and a low_error_factor of 0.2, your
pretrace will attempt to achieve a 250-fold (!) higher sample density than
needed for the final trace. (It will never ever achieve this coverage though,
because it will not do enough passes.) Setting nearest_count to 1 and
low_error_factor to 0.5 will cause the pretrace to still aim for 4-fold sample
density.

- Try reducing the recursion_limit, unless you really need three bounces (which
is very rarely the case). The bugs and flaws in 3.6 basically caused deeper
radiosity "bounces" to be limited to a single trace level, i.e. every mirror
and window would look pitch-black to them. The beta.30-rad1 is not so drastic,
with the effect that deep-recursion pretraces take longer than before even with
the same number of samples gathered.

Post a reply to this message