>   No.
>   Diffuse affects radiosity. That's why it's called "diffuse
inter-reflection"
> in the first place.
>
>   And this is a good thing. You get a lot better results faster using real
> light sources than using high-ambient objects. This is because real light
> sources are very fast to calculate, while getting a good illumination from
> a high-ambient object needs tons and tons of samples.

Hm. So then samples store the actual brightness at a sampled
spot, right? For example, if I light a sphere with a pointlight
somewhere, a sample won't just store the brightness of samples,
but inhibit the brightness of the position as well.
Makes sense, come to think of it.
So photons also affect radiosity?

I've noticed some of that in the later experiments I did AFTER
writing these posts (and their pretty time-consuming, as we
all know about radiosity, right? :-)

I find this topic very interesting, and experimenting with it
is fun. Understanding the main algorithm however is a
very useful addition when trying to tweak the settings. You
know what you're actually affecting, and don't just have to
think like "the smaller, the more detailed". You'll also know
things like "the smaller, the more detailed, but the more
undesired contrast is introduced, e.g. edges..."


-- 
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.495 / Virus Database: 294 - Release Date: 30.06.2003

Post a reply to this message