On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 09:48:38 +0100, Christoph Hormann
<chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:

>This part of the statistics should be pretty self-explanatory if you 
>know how a raytracer works.  It tells you how many intersection tests 
>are done for each type of shape and how many of them hit the object. 
>Therefore a 'simple higher percentage = better' is of course not true 
>but a very low percentage indicates problems.  You are horribly 
>inefficient with the triangles, the reason probably being you did not 
>use a mesh (no mesh is listed in your statistics).

Ack, I screwed up.  I added my triangles into a union of other objects
rather than first using a mesh.  Blush.

Now, please be patient with me, Christoph, but I'm still not sure I
understand your above explanation.  If the statistics are informing me
of how many intersections tests were performed, and of those how many
hit my object... then why *doesn't* that mean 'higher percentage =
better'?  If 100 tests are performed inside a given bounding box, and
the bounding box perfectly matched my object in size and shape...
shouldn't I get a hit percentage of 100%?

You mention that low percentages indicate potential problems.  Er, how
low is 'too low'?  I realize there isn't a simple answer to this, but
is there a broad rule-of-thumb I could use to help me start paying
better attention?

- How

Post a reply to this message