In article <3e10983b@news.povray.org>,
 "Gilles Tran" <git### [at] wanadoofr> wrote:


> news: chr### [at] netplexaussieorg...
> > But it is still less accurate than radiosity could be, as far as I can
> > tell.
> Accuracy here is really a non-issue given the benefits...

Well, since my interests are mainly in simulation, "better" == "more 
accurate", "less accurate" == "worse". Speed is only part of my equation 
for judging a simulation if the quality is a constant. Like glows or 
fog, this is a compromise of quality vs. speed...it isn't "better than 
radiosity", just faster without being a lot worse, like what ambient was 
originally for.

Since you are an artist, you have different criteria about which is 
"better".

-- 
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message