Margus Ramst <mar### [at] peakeduee> wrote...
> 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.

What do you mean by 'no energy balancing'?  The monte-carlo approach can
give very physically correct results without lots of tweaking.  My changes
to radiosity greatly reduce the number of variables that the user has to
mess with to get reasonable results.  And it now ignores 'ambient' settings,
so if you set the ambient to zero, then use a brightness of 1.0, you will
get physically accurate results.

On the other hand, it does require a good deal of processor power (although
so does true radiosity).  And, like Nieminen Juha mentioned, it is view
dependent.  A totally view-independent solution might not be totally
possible, but if you keep re-loading the data and then adding to it (and
expire old nodes), it could save time.

-Nathan

Post a reply to this message