On 8/15/20 5:42 AM, William F Pokorny wrote:
> On 8/15/20 3:27 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
...
> 
> I'm not a big radiosity user, but I'll play a little with the flags 
> while my coffee brews and post if I figure more out.
> 

OK. I found to create/save radiosity results I had to use "+rfRad.sav 
+rfo". To use the samples I had to use "+rfRad.sav +rfi".

Further, as shown in the top row of the attached image the "+rfRad.sav 
+rfo" result on the left is not identical to the "+rfRad.sav +rfi" 
results in the middle. Any two +rfo, +rfi renders are identical.

The perhaps helpful news, when comparing a complete "+rfRad.sav +rfi" 
render on the left bottom to one which had be stopped and continued 
every two render block rows in the bottom middle, the results are 
closer. The issue is still there, but the effect is not as pronounced.

This is with your radiosity block - always sample is off. It looks as if 
even loading radiosity samples some radiosity calculation / smaller 
number of rays are shot. Didn't explore whether there was some way to 
better suppress some/all of these and so get a closer match on continuation.

If you're using radiosity and think you might stop and start your 
render, using save radiosity samples is for that render is better, but 
not a complete fix/workaround.

Bill P.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'continueradsavbetter.jpg' (389 KB)

Preview of image 'continueradsavbetter.jpg'

Op 15/08/2020 om 13:02 schreef William F Pokorny:
> 
> OK. I found to create/save radiosity results I had to use "+rfRad.sav 
> +rfo". To use the samples I had to use "+rfRad.sav +rfi".

Ah! So it is the .sav extension that is mandatory. I used .inc but that 
did not work apparently. The wiki is silent about this and I think it 
should be mentioned there and wherever the .sav is needed. The use of 
+rfo and +rf1 in this context also needs some more explanation.

> 
> Further, as shown in the top row of the attached image the "+rfRad.sav 
> +rfo" result on the left is not identical to the "+rfRad.sav +rfi" 
> results in the middle. Any two +rfo, +rfi renders are identical.

OK. Having done a bit of experimentation of my own now, I see that using 
"+rfRad.sav +rfo" for the first run, and then "+rfRad.sav +rfo +rfi" for 
all continuations, results in a - visually - seamless render (see 
attachment where I continued several times randomly). VERY good indeed! 
Thanks Bill, for this insight.

> 
> The perhaps helpful news, when comparing a complete "+rfRad.sav +rfi" 
> render on the left bottom to one which had be stopped and continued 
> every two render block rows in the bottom middle, the results are 
> closer. The issue is still there, but the effect is not as pronounced.
> 
> This is with your radiosity block - always sample is off. It looks as if 
> even loading radiosity samples some radiosity calculation / smaller 
> number of rays are shot. Didn't explore whether there was some way to 
> better suppress some/all of these and so get a closer match on 
> continuation.
> 
> If you're using radiosity and think you might stop and start your 
> render, using save radiosity samples is for that render is better, but 
> not a complete fix/workaround.
> 

Indeed, but as I said above, visually, the render /looks/ faultless and 
this is a workable solution.

Thanks again indeed for your help, Bill. I am glad we brought this 
little bug to light.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'continueissue_grey_3.jpg' (55 KB)

Preview of image 'continueissue_grey_3.jpg'

And so we reach the final scene.

The two isosurfaces (see p.t.scene-files) are superposed.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'into the wild_final2.png' (887 KB)

Preview of image 'into the wild_final2.png'

Thomas de Groot wrote on 02/09/2020 08:31:
> And so we reach the final scene.
> 
> The two isosurfaces (see p.t.scene-files) are superposed.
> 

Really a great image!

  Paolo

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> And so we reach the final scene.
>
> The two isosurfaces (see p.t.scene-files) are superposed.
>

That looks really good. I certainly like the 'fuzzy vegetation' effect; well
done! And thanks for posting the code.

Post a reply to this message

Op 02/09/2020 om 20:08 schreef Kenneth:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> And so we reach the final scene.
>>
>> The two isosurfaces (see p.t.scene-files) are superposed.
>>
> 
> That looks really good. I certainly like the 'fuzzy vegetation' effect; well
> done! And thanks for posting the code.
> 
> 

Thanks indeed, Paolo and Kenneth.

The fuzzy vegetation code was a chance hit :-) and it is as fast (or as 
slow) to render as the rocky part. Overall, while I like isosurfaces to 
build landscapes, I am reluctant to use them because of their slow 
render speed, although I do not complain for this particular one. But if 
you want to complete the landscapes with vegetation, dwellings, roads 
and such, the testing time becomes prohibitive indeed.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message