So I've been working on this for several months now (off and on) and it's
nowhere near finished.

The problem I'm having is that even with the crummy radiosity settings I used on
this render, it took several days.  The reason for this, I think, is the
combination of the lighting and the water (I know the water needs work).

I've been experimenting with pure radiosity for lighting, but I'm having trouble
getting good illumination from flames. I've tried pumping the emission (media)
as high as 1200, but as soon as I try to add color to the flames the light all
but vanishes.

I hadn't really wanted to show this off yet, but I need help with the lighting.

This render uses conventional lighting but, as I said, it was slow.

Regards,
A.D.B.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'serraglio.png' (850 KB)

Preview of image 'serraglio.png'

On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 00:15:07 +0200, Anthony D. Baye
<Sha### [at] spamnomorehotmailcom> wrote:

> So I've been working on this for several months now (off and on) and it's
> nowhere near finished.
>
> The problem I'm having is that even with the crummy radiosity settings I  
> used on
> this render, it took several days.  The reason for this, I think, is the
> combination of the lighting and the water (I know the water needs work).
>
> I've been experimenting with pure radiosity for lighting, but I'm having  
> trouble
> getting good illumination from flames. I've tried pumping the emission  
> (media)
> as high as 1200, but as soon as I try to add color to the flames the  
> light all
> but vanishes.
>
> I hadn't really wanted to show this off yet, but I need help with the  
> lighting.
>
> This render uses conventional lighting but, as I said, it was slow.
>
> Regards,
> A.D.B.

Are the spirals parametrics?
Lanuhum also complained about long render times with parametrics.

-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

"Nekar Xenos" <nek### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 00:15:07 +0200, Anthony D. Baye
> <Sha### [at] spamnomorehotmailcom> wrote:
>
> > So I've been working on this for several months now (off and on) and it's
> > nowhere near finished.
> >
> > The problem I'm having is that even with the crummy radiosity settings I
> > used on
> > this render, it took several days.  The reason for this, I think, is the
> > combination of the lighting and the water (I know the water needs work).
> >
> > I've been experimenting with pure radiosity for lighting, but I'm having
> > trouble
> > getting good illumination from flames. I've tried pumping the emission
> > (media)
> > as high as 1200, but as soon as I try to add color to the flames the
> > light all
> > but vanishes.
> >
> > I hadn't really wanted to show this off yet, but I need help with the
> > lighting.
> >
> > This render uses conventional lighting but, as I said, it was slow.
> >
> > Regards,
> > A.D.B.
>
> Are the spirals parametrics?
> Lanuhum also complained about long render times with parametrics.
>
> --
> -Nekar Xenos-

The columns are isosurfaces.

The render time for the columns is nothing compared to the water when the
lighting is turned on.

Regards,
A.D.B.

Post a reply to this message

Am 24.08.2015 um 04:53 schrieb Anthony D. Baye:

> The render time for the columns is nothing compared to the water when the
> lighting is turned on.

Does the water have a diffuse component?

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 24.08.2015 um 04:53 schrieb Anthony D. Baye:
>
> > The render time for the columns is nothing compared to the water when the
> > lighting is turned on.
>
> Does the water have a diffuse component?

diffuse 0

See my looking for water thread in p.general its basically all there

Regards
A.D.B.

Post a reply to this message

Am 24.08.2015 um 15:46 schrieb Anthony D. Baye:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Am 24.08.2015 um 04:53 schrieb Anthony D. Baye:
>>
>>> The render time for the columns is nothing compared to the water when the
>>> lighting is turned on.
>>
>> Does the water have a diffuse component?
> 
> diffuse 0
> 
> See my looking for water thread in p.general its basically all there

That bugs me. How come water should have such an impact on radiosity
render times? That can't be, can it?

Post a reply to this message

On 24.08.2015 17:37, clipka wrote:

> That bugs me. How come water should have such an impact on radiosity
> render times? That can't be, can it?

According to the other thread the water renders slowly even
without radiosity. It might be due to the blurry reflections/normals
in combination with anti-aliasing.

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 24.08.2015 um 15:46 schrieb Anthony D. Baye:
> > clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> >> Am 24.08.2015 um 04:53 schrieb Anthony D. Baye:
> >>
> >>> The render time for the columns is nothing compared to the water when the
> >>> lighting is turned on.
> >>
> >> Does the water have a diffuse component?
> >
> > diffuse 0
> >
> > See my looking for water thread in p.general its basically all there
>
> That bugs me. How come water should have such an impact on radiosity
> render times? That can't be, can it?

As I understand it, the problem is the six light sources ( real ones, not
radiant objects) surrounding the pool.  Perhaps there's some optimization
possible when dealing with multiple light sources affecting a common area?

Regards,
A.D.B.

Post a reply to this message

"Anthony D. Baye" <Sha### [at] spamnomorehotmailcom> wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> > Am 24.08.2015 um 15:46 schrieb Anthony D. Baye:
> > > clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> > >> Am 24.08.2015 um 04:53 schrieb Anthony D. Baye:
> > >>
> > >>> The render time for the columns is nothing compared to the water when the
> > >>> lighting is turned on.
> > >>
> > >> Does the water have a diffuse component?
> > >
> > > diffuse 0
> > >
> > > See my looking for water thread in p.general its basically all there
> >
> > That bugs me. How come water should have such an impact on radiosity
> > render times? That can't be, can it?
>
> As I understand it, the problem is the six light sources ( real ones, not
> radiant objects) surrounding the pool.  Perhaps there's some optimization
> possible when dealing with multiple light sources affecting a common area?
>
> Regards,
> A.D.B.

Maybe I can express my opinion.
Once I rendered a scene with large area surfaces that switched the
specular/phong on. The multiple light sources can make it slow truely.
I only have the experience that time. Because I almost use the reflection
instead of specular.

Post a reply to this message

"And" <49341109@ntnu.edu.tw> wrote:
> "Anthony D. Baye" <Sha### [at] spamnomorehotmailcom> wrote:
> > clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> > > Am 24.08.2015 um 15:46 schrieb Anthony D. Baye:
> > > > clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> > > >> Am 24.08.2015 um 04:53 schrieb Anthony D. Baye:
> > > >>
> > > >>> The render time for the columns is nothing compared to the water when the
> > > >>> lighting is turned on.
> > > >>
> > > >> Does the water have a diffuse component?
> > > >
> > > > diffuse 0
> > > >
> > > > See my looking for water thread in p.general its basically all there
> > >
> > > That bugs me. How come water should have such an impact on radiosity
> > > render times? That can't be, can it?
> >
> > As I understand it, the problem is the six light sources ( real ones, not
> > radiant objects) surrounding the pool.  Perhaps there's some optimization
> > possible when dealing with multiple light sources affecting a common area?
> >
> > Regards,
> > A.D.B.
>
> Maybe I can express my opinion.
> Once I rendered a scene with large area surfaces that switched the
> specular/phong on. The multiple light sources can make it slow truely.
> I only have the experience that time. Because I almost use the reflection
> instead of specular.

This only gives good results of you use photons, and I've never had good results
with photons.

Regards,
A.D.B.

Post a reply to this message