Christoph Hormann wrote:
> 
> Xplo Eristotle wrote:
> >
> > A couple notes on radiosity settings: first, the only light_source is a
> > "sun" placed well outside the room, and the count for this image was
> > only 100. I achieved this level of smoothness with a high error_bound
> > and a low low_error_factor (1 and .1, respectively). More testing is
> > needed to determine if this method can replace typical low error_bound
> > radiosity settings in other situations, unless someone's already done
> > some and I missed it, but I'll let someone with a faster computer than
> > mine do that testing!
> 
> Hmm, it looks really quite accurate for error_bound 1, but i am not sure
> if it's a very good method. What recursion_limit did you use? Have you
> tried varying pretrace_end?

recursion_limit 2, and no. As I said, my computer is slow, which
discourages extensive testing. I'll probably do some spot testing (maybe
in that top corner) later, but the current settings are good enough to
work with.

> I'm not sure, but such a scene seems a quite difficult setup for radiosity
> in general.  How does it look with more conventional radiosity settings?

Like any other room lit mostly by radiosity: lots of artifacts, even on
flat surfaces.

> It looks nice, my submission for the 10best cover image contest has a
> similar configuration (but a bit different lighting) and i was forced to
> use fairly low radiosity settings because it was that slow.

The radiosity is the only slow thing in my scene; without it, this image
would render in a couple of minutes, rather than several hours.

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message