In article <392222B0.B21B3141@earthlink.net>, rdm### [at] earthlinknet wrote:

> I think i like the old radiosity better... How should i change the source
> to revert to the old radiosity files... I tried replacing the <
> radiosit.c, radiosit.h, & rad_data.c > files with no luck... it
> complained of errors w/ radiosit.c and lighting.c...? is there an easy
> way to fix this...
> The new radiosity seems quite boring... Se post < rad. not rad. > in pbi.
> 
> The old one was much nicer...
> IMHO...

The changes are probably too tightly integrated to separate from 
everything else without a large amount of work.

What exactly don't you like about the new one?
It is faster, smoother, less buggy, and does a much better simulation of 
light. Perhaps you are just using the wrong settings, the ones that were 
good for the official version don't work as well in the new radiosity.

-- 
Christopher James Huff - Personal e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
TAG(Technical Assistance Group) e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
Personal Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
TAG Web page: http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message

Chris Huff wrote:

>
> The changes are probably too tightly integrated to separate from
> everything else without a large amount of work.
>

I had a feeling... Maybe later ...?

>
> What exactly don't you like about the new one?
> It is faster, smoother, less buggy, and does a much better simulation of
> light. Perhaps you are just using the wrong settings, the ones that were
> good for the official version don't work as well in the new radiosity.
>

See my "Rad not Rad" post to see what i want to achieve... I tried changing
settings to match w/ little success... Both images use the default settings...

>
> --
> Christopher James Huff - Personal e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
> TAG(Technical Assistance Group) e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
> Personal Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
> TAG Web page: http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message