Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   In that case it would be interesting to know why it seems that Radiance
> gets superb-looking, accurate and smooth radiosity with (apparently) no or
> minimal tweaking, while in POV-Ray it seems to be a constant struggle to
> get artifact-free radiosity which looks good and realistic.

http://radsite.lbl.gov/radiance/gallery/electric.html

Don't look any better than the best images in POV's HOF.  In fact, their focus
on technical correctness and lack of any artistic aesthetic makes them
downright ugly and aseptic to most povray users, I guess.

I've also seen scenes by Gilles Tran that used quite standard settings for
"radiosity" and still produced sublime results.  I wonder how much tweaking
he'd save on radiance's "radiosity" settings but instead call a long
command-line pipe with all the little radiance utilities needed to "compile" a
single image... it's a huge advantage of povray over radiance.  That and the
SDL.

>   What do you mean by "TRUE Radiosity"? If you are referring to the
> lightmapping precalculation technique, the only limitation to implementing
> it in POV-Ray would be that it's more or less limited to polygons. It could
> be conceivably be implemented in POV-Ray, assuming it's limited to work with
> meshes only (for both the illuminated surfaces and surfaces which illuminate
> other surfaces). Given how widely used meshes are, it wouldn't be all that
> far-fetched to think that it could be useful even with this limitation.

Yes.  I also wonder if photon mapping is not useful as a general GI method in
povray for the same reason of lightmapped radiosity...

Post a reply to this message