POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.binaries.images : is radiosity (MP) really necessary? [tot~80KB Jpg] : Re: is radiosity (MP) really necessary? [tot~80KB Jpg] Server Time
1 Oct 2024 13:15:52 EDT (-0400)
  Re: is radiosity (MP) really necessary? [tot~80KB Jpg]  
From: Xplo Eristotle
Date: 6 Sep 2000 17:04:23
Message: <39B6B206.BBDB48C9@unforgettable.com>
Bob Hughes wrote:
> 
> "Xplo Eristotle" <inq### [at] unforgettablecom> wrote in message
> news:39B5787A.641CC3B5@unforgettable.com...
> |
> | Set the sky ambient to 1 and diffuse to 0.
> 
> Well, you are saying the opposite there from my experiences with the MegaPov
> kind.  Perhaps you are talking of official POV-Ray though.

Nope, I'm talking about MegaPOV. With those settings, the sky SHOULD
give off radiosity but not receive any, which is what it ought to do.
(In real life, the sky probably DOES pick up some ground radiosity, but
I doubt it makes a lot of difference.)

> Yep, I'll check another render out using your advice.  What I did was to use
> the recent radiosity settings Mike Hough and others had been using for those
> smoothed shadowed hemispherically lit Arnold-like things, figuring if it was
> good enough for that....

I posted the first one of those. ;)

> The main point I wanted to make is how a radiosity rendering could
> potentially be worthless compared to a much speedier rendering.

Well, that's true of almost anything: antialiasing, photons, area_light
settings, isosurface accuracy, et al.

-Xplo


Post a reply to this message

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.