clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> As I previously tried to show, it /is/ sufficiently close to the inverse
> square formula when you specify a small fade_distance, and it is
> actually /more/ realistic than the inverse square formula.

Yes, I have found this now.  What my problem was before was that I was using
very large fade_distance values.  If I use very small ones, it works out much
better.  This does mean usually that my light source intensities get huge: for
example, in my projector, the distance from my light to the screen is 2492, I
have a fade_distance of 4.58, my light intensity needs to be 148210 to have an
intenisty of 1 at the screen.  But it does look much better with the fall-off
rate I was more expecting.

-tgq

Post a reply to this message