"Hughes, B." <omn### [at] charternet> wrote in message
news:40cc2431$1@news.povray.org...
> Hmmmmm. Wish I knew the real reason for the change but it manifests itself
> somehow in the position of the lights and adaptive value of the area
lights.
>
> To see what I mean, try dividing the first light's position vector by 1.1,
> which will be <-15, 45, -35>/1.1. Also give it adaptive 2 instead of 0.
> Change the three under-cabinet spotlight positions so that they are at y=9
> and z=4, x remaining same.
> Make the second area light adaptive 2, as well.

That works, but why?

> In your posted scene script you had put a max_trace_level 200 at the top,
it
> belongs in the global_settings block but I found it wasn't needed to see
the
> supposed solution.

Yeah, part of it is this scene is an old scene that was revised for 3.5/3.6

> Looks like the second box in the union of the CounterBody object ends up
> with its lowest side where those three under-counter lights were (are), so
> you'll need to watch out for those kinds of alignments. The coincident
> surfaces phenomenon tends to include lights and camera at object surfaces.
>
> Bob H.

From what I have seen the coincident surfaces problem usually manifests
itself as a random speckling of the object and/or light source. In reality,
the spotlight should not affect the cabinet above them. I am a bit suprised
I didn't see the usual coincident surfaces issue before in this scene.

All in all, this has the hallmarks of an accuracy problem. (i.e. really far
away objects viewed with a really narrow camera angle seem to have drop-out
like this). But in my case, the values are within practical limits..

Hmmm...

Post a reply to this message