Bob Hughes wrote:
> 
> I figure that subject line will get some attention  :-)
> 
> Well, to explain myself, I checked 3 renders against each other (by eye, not
> extensively) concerning render time and appearance.  I was stunned to find a
> 16 X slower render without any visible benefit from it.  A low count of 50
> and recursion of 1 took a mere 19 minutes and 11 seconds.  Then using count
> 100 recursion_limit 2 it went to 5 hours and 15 minutes!  Without radiosity
> at all was a 5 min 42 sec render.
> The peak memory amount really jumps too.  I mean, wow, is that really needed
> when the 6 minute render looks okay?  At most the 20 minute one...
> I have to add that the 3rd image actually did finish but I stupidly
> rerendered using the same filename to make sure about the non-radiosity one.
> Luckily I had screen captured it before that.  Believe me, no noticeable
> difference between the recursion 1 and 2 except for a texture change on the
> chimney I did in the script.
> 

Recursion limit above 1 is not necessary in many situations, but there has to be
something wrong IMO, because you should get at least a strong bluish touch
because of the sky in every radiosity version.  It could help if you would
explain the changes made between the radiosity/no radiosity version.  

Christoph

--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message