|
|
On 5/29/19 9:22 AM, William F Pokorny wrote:
> On 5/29/19 2:31 AM, Paolo Gibellini wrote:
>> Thomas de Groot wrote on 28/05/2019 08:35:
> ...
>
> My maze play turned up two issues. One marked with the '?s'. It looks
> like the isosurface is getting pulled apart (shadows? normals?). No luck
> thus far running the cause down. Only that one place and with smallish
> changes it goes away.
>
...
OK. In the hopes of helping by providing a later reference post.
The '?s' artifacts in the posted image can be significantly mitigated by
increasing isosurface accuracy.
I usually set my isosurface accuracy a step beyond
1/max(image_width,image_height) the resolutions I typically expect to
render. I used 'accuracy 0.0005'. Increasing it to 0.00001 mostly solves
the problem, but things are, for me, still a little grainy.
Grainy for me because I'm running with a shadow tolerance of 1e-5
instead of the 1e-3 long used in POV-Ray to avoid light bleed through
during shadow testing. Why not just increase accuracy to say 1e-6 you
ask! This indeed solves my shadow graininess, but that accuracy also
reveals a subtle ripple in the underlying isosurface function. Yep, in a
box.
Starting to believe the shadow tolerance in trace.cpp should be a user
controllable setting!
The last bit is the df3 being used is not deep in z relative to x,y to
save space. The black hole warp is rolling that lessor z resolution into
view at the problem location.
Bill P.
Post a reply to this message
|
|