"MichaelJF" <mi-### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> "Anthony D. Baye" <Sha### [at] spamnomorehotmailcom> wrote:
> > So I've been working on this for several months now (off and on) and it's
> > nowhere near finished.
> >
> > The problem I'm having is that even with the crummy radiosity settings I used on
> > this render, it took several days.  The reason for this, I think, is the
> > combination of the lighting and the water (I know the water needs work).
> >
> > I've been experimenting with pure radiosity for lighting, but I'm having trouble
> > getting good illumination from flames. I've tried pumping the emission (media)
> > as high as 1200, but as soon as I try to add color to the flames the light all
> > but vanishes.
> >
> > I hadn't really wanted to show this off yet, but I need help with the lighting.
> >
> > This render uses conventional lighting but, as I said, it was slow.
> >
> > Regards,
> > A.D.B.
>
> The hole debate here is only about theory. Can you post the source code? Most
> likely I'm not the one to spot the difficulties but others may be able to do so.
>
> Best regards,
> Michael

First of all, the original question was about theory.  Secondly, I'm not asking
for help fixing code: I'm using a water material (slightly modified) that was
provided in a previous thread, if that doesn't work right nothing will.

The problem is most likely due to six overlapping light boxes, plus water which
has been said to be slow under ideal conditions.  The only viable option I can
think of is to get rid of the point lights entirely and switch to some sort of
radiant lighting, which is what the question was actually about.

so, to reiterate, does anybody have a good way to make luminous flames without
point lights?

Regards,
A.D.B.

Post a reply to this message