Tim Nikias v2.0 wrote:
> 
> Seriously though: I was just analyzing indoor scenes
> with pure radiosity, especially scenes where the lightsource
> is more or less a lightbulb or something similiar. Shadows
> produced by those are very soft, as said before.
> But sure, with the right settings, one could get crisper
> shadows. Still, I'd go so far and say that for the majority
> of scenes where radiosity is used indoors, shadows
> produced thereby are very soft.

As they probably should be.

Next time you're in a room with a radiosity-ish light source (say, a 
lamp with a large shade that blocks out most of the direct light) take a 
look at the shadows. My own room is like that, and looking around, even 
objects a dozen feet from the lamp and a few inches from the wall have 
rather soft shadows.

I doubt you have any viable pure radiosity scenes that accurately 
simulate a naked lightbulb in a room; the lightbulb would be so small 
that even with count 1600, the vast majority of those tests would miss 
it entirely, resulting in massive artifacting; increasing recursion to 2 
or 3 (as appropriate for such an environment) would only increase this, 
as would setting error_bound low enough to make the radiosity capable of 
producing sharp shadows (say, .1 or less).

If a method is found and implemented to allow significantly higher count 
values, the naked light scene would make an interesting experiment. 
However, AFAIK, no one is working on it (and I have no ideas).

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message