Thats the most realistic rendering I've ever seen.

Great job!!

Gary

JRG <jrg### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message news:3be532ca@news.povray.org...
> I followed Kari Kivisalo's suggestions and rendered a 320*240 version of
the
> scene without ior, without normal and with both diffuse 0 and ambient 0. I
> used save_file inside the radiosity block and then I reload the file as
you
> can see below:
>
>  radiosity {
>       pretrace_start 1
>       pretrace_end   1
>       count 400
>       nearest_count 8
>       error_bound 0.15
>       recursion_limit 3
>       low_error_factor 0.5
>       gray_threshold 0
>       minimum_reuse 0.015
>       brightness 2.5
>       adc_bailout 0.01/2
>       always_sample off
>       load_file "still_rad_data"
> }
>
> Well, the result isn't *perfect* (you can see several artifacts, esp on
the
> table planks and at the lowest edge of the room), but render time was much
> more friendly.
> The 320*240 image took 22 minutes to render, while the final version took
> about 7 hours and 45 minutes (vs 3 days the other one would have taken).
> Yet there are many aspects that puzzle me:
>
> 1) Why using load_file and always_sample off the render time is still much
> slower than without radiosity?
> 2) Shouldn't you get the same results in spite of the settings used? (When
> you're using load_file).
> 3) Why stopping and then resuming the render caused that discontinuity
(with
> pretrace_start 1, pretrace_end 1, load_file and always_sample off this
> shoudn't occur)
> 4) What caused those artifacts on the table (there weren't artifacts in
the
> version rendered for saving data)?
>
> IMO some bugs are involved here, esp. in the saving/loading process. Once
I
> have practised enough with C I will have a look to the code and find a
> solution... but at the moment I'm too busy with my ultra-sofisticated
> *Hello* programs :-)
> TIA for those who will have the patient to answer all my questions,
>
> --
> Jonathan.
> <Computer, kill Ned Flander...>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message