Nieminen Juha wrote:
> 
>   Actually the montecarlo approach is pretty fast and efficient (when done
> right, like Nathan has done).
>   Nathan's improvements are just marvelous. A scene which takes several hours
> to render with povray's regular radiosity at recursion level 2 takes only
> about 10 minutes with Nathan's modifications at recursion level 4 and the
> result is much better.
>   IMHO, we need no stinking "true" radiosity.
> 

It does have the shortcoming of doing no energy balancing, so you have to tweak
a lot to have physically correct results. So it's not as suitable for
architectural lighting studies (not meant to be, I know) OTOH, it gives you more
freedom.
So if we don't get 'no stinking true radiosity', I can live with that.

Margus

Post a reply to this message