clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Yes, with these statistics numbers it's no surprise that you get those
> blocky artifacts.
>
> Your error_bound is unconventionally low, thus increasing the desired
> sample density; typically, a value of 0.5 will do. "normal on" increases
> desired density even more; unless you use radiosity as primary
> illumination you can typically go without.
>
> As already mentioned, do use "always_sample off"; I'd also recommend
> "low_error_factor 0.5" to force the pretrace to go for a higher sample
> coverage than the final trace would demand for.
>
> The pretrace_start and pretrace_end look quite ok to me at a first
> glance. If the other changes don't give you the desired final-vs-total
> ratio though, you might want to decrease pretrace_end.
>
> The statistics also show that only very few samples are gathered during
> the first passes (and no samples at all in the very first one), so you
> may want to reduce pretrace_start; I'd suggest to start at what is now
> pass 3, i.e. "pretrace_start 0.02"

Wow, after several hours of experimenting I think I finally have good radiosity
settings. I had to keep error_bound very low, otherwise the radiosity effect
disappeared in little crevices. One happy side-effect of my efforts was
discovering a better setting for adc_bailout - changing it from the default to
..1 sped things up considerably without a significant drop in quality. Thanks for
the great suggestions!

Regards,
Dave Blandston

Post a reply to this message