nemesis <nam### [at] nospamgmailcom> wrote:
> Well, it does seem to handle indeed a huge amount of point lights
> automatically generated from quite a few light sources.  But it seems
> about as slow as any other GI method.  OTOH, there doesn't seem to be
> any radiosity count limit.  And, I wonder if it'd be more amenable to
> multiprocessing than radiosity...

I'd guess so. With radiosity, lots of interim results would have to be shared
beteen adjacent pixels. With Lightcuts, theoretically you'd have just the one
light source tree that would be shared, and for each pixel you would calculate
a new cut of the tree anyway, so no need for sharing this information (although
it *could* be shared among pixels calculated in the same thread, in order to
speed up finding the optimal cut. If there is any sense in doing so.)

Post a reply to this message