Margus Ramst wrote:
> But it seems you have to use some rather unrealistic parameters to get there. For
> example diffuse 1.2 would mean that the surface reflects more light that it
> receives.

My point exactly. We need more predictable implementation of radiosity
and less tweaking.

Now it's almost purely quesswork but since POV wasn't build from ground
up to produce realistic simulations I shouldn't complain. After all
realistic doesn't necessarily mean it's good looking :)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kari Kivisalo                                          www.kivisalo.net

Post a reply to this message