Nathan Kopp wrote:
> 
> 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.

Well, I cannot be entirely sure all (true) radiosity implementations do energy
balancing, but i know for a fact that some, like BMRT, do. I'm probably
lecturing to someone whose knowledge on this matter is superior to mine, but
I'll go ahead and do it anyways :)
As you know, the radiosity engine divides surfaces into discrete patches with a
certain amount of energy (i.e. light) absorption and emission. Energy
transmission is then calculated until it can be said, within specified
confidence limits, that all energy emitted into the scene has been absorbed. The
Monte Carlo method doesn't really provide for this, at least not in an effective
manner.
I agree though, POV's radiosity gives reasonable results that are good enough
for most applications. Certainly good enogh for me.
And you should by no means think that I'm not appreciating your work :)

Margus

Post a reply to this message