 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'm trying to use radiosity in an outdoor scene. (Yes, I've looked at
Warp's tut.) Someone here suggested using a plane as a light source.
Does radiosity always:
1) destroy any effect of fog?
2) destroy any effect of surface normals?
[it is funny. I posted this question about 10 minutes ago. It ended
up being counted as a reply by the pov server to a July 1999 note
because it had the same title!]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Oct 2000 09:20:15 -0400, Greg M. Johnson wrote:
>[it is funny. I posted this question about 10 minutes ago. It ended
>up being counted as a reply by the pov server to a July 1999 note
>because it had the same title!]
Not by the server, just by your news software. The server isn't responsible
for threading. Some clients do it wrong and use the subject line instead of
the References: line. Those clients are prone to this problem.
--
Ron Parker http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
My opinions. Mine. Not anyone else's.
Proudly not helping RIAA and SDMI steal my rights --
http://www.eff.org/Misc/EFF/Newsletters/EFFector/HTML/effect13.08.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Greg M. Johnson" <gre### [at] my-dejanews com> wrote in message
news:39DDD18F.C48DC19F@my-dejanews.com...
>
> [it is funny. I posted this question about 10 minutes ago. It ended
> up being counted as a reply by the pov server to a July 1999 note
> because it had the same title!]
Not here it didn't. Which newsreader are you using?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> If the normal pattern has too much detail, you may have
> to increase your radiosity quality to see it.
Which parameter(s) would increase radiosity quality?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Warp
Subject: Re: what warp wrote back in that July thread re: Radiosity
Date: 9 Oct 2000 04:52:25
Message: <39e18749@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Greg M. Johnson <gre### [at] my-dejanewscom> wrote:
: Which parameter(s) would increase radiosity quality?
At least sample count (bigger better) and error bound (smaller better).
Some other parameters might have some quality effect as well.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Greg M. Johnson <gre### [at] my-dejanewscom> wrote:
> : Which parameter(s) would increase radiosity quality?
>
> At least sample count (bigger better) and error bound (smaller better).
> Some other parameters might have some quality effect as well.
Thanks. The fog, interestingly enough, also reappears when you remove the
comment bars from the lines containing the fog code ; )
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Greg M. Johnson" wrote:
>
> Warp wrote:
> > If the normal pattern has too much detail, you may have
> > to increase your radiosity quality to see it.
>
> Which parameter(s) would increase radiosity quality?
To pick out finer details, decrease error_bound. To improve the overall
accuracy, increase the count (this is especially necessary for scenes
with small bright objects, less so for dim scenes or large bright objects).
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Xplo Eristotle wrote:
> "Greg M. Johnson" wrote:
> > Which parameter(s) would increase radiosity quality?
>
> To pick out finer details, decrease error_bound.
below 1?
> To improve the overall accuracy, increase the count
already at 180?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hmm. It didn't occur to me to ask, but you ARE using MegaPOV, right? (If
not.. you ought to be. ;P )
"Greg M. Johnson" wrote:
>
> Xplo Eristotle wrote:
>
> > "Greg M. Johnson" wrote:
> > > Which parameter(s) would increase radiosity quality?
> >
> > To pick out finer details, decrease error_bound.
>
> below 1?
Oh yes. 0.3 does a decent job of this. I take it you haven't been
following the low error radiosity work in p.b.i.? (I should put up a web
page about it, I guess.)
> > To improve the overall accuracy, increase the count
>
> already at 180?
Depends on the illumination present in your scene. For an outdoor scene,
180 should be plenty.
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Warp
Subject: Re: what warp wrote back in that July thread re: Radiosity
Date: 10 Oct 2000 04:46:46
Message: <39e2d775@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Greg M. Johnson <gre### [at] my-dejanewscom> wrote:
: The fog, interestingly enough, also reappears when you remove the
: comment bars from the lines containing the fog code ; )
Well, that *IS* one possible solution, indeed... :)
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
