Kenneth nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 10/08/2006 16:18:
> "Samuel Benge" <stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Hi Ken. Are you the same Ken who once ran a big list of graphics links?
> 
> Nope, never did. Sorry!
>>
>> If I may give you some settings I always use for radiosity. Try these alone...
>>
> 
> I'll give them a whirl, and report back with the results.  Thanks.
>> The error_bound should be low for better shadows. This is one of the most
>> important settings. error_bound and count together should be modified
>> before anything else.
> 
> Yes, I've been wondering about that.  It seems that count
> ISN'T the FIRST  thing to modify (given defaults
> for everything else.) Not much visual
> difference between low and high values, without modifying other things "in
> step" as well. Thanks for the tip.
>> In addition to these things, you should use a bright, fading (fade_power 2)
>> light inside the sphere instead of just making the sphere very bright. An
>> area_light (with orient and circular flags added) works well for this. The
>> sphere should be given the no_shadow flag to let the light shine through.
> 
> Alas, I was *hoping* I could light this scene realistically just by using a
> pure, small ambient "light source," but I do understand that the radiosity
> equations (and/or just the default values) were made to be used with
> ACTUAL light sources. I may ultimately have to do as you suggest.  Haven't
> given up yet, though! ;-)
> 
> Let me ask a very basic question:
> 1)  Is it ALWAYS better --that is, more realistic and of higher quality--to
> use the highest count possible and a very low error_bound value? (Assuming
> that the resulting l*o*n*g render time is unimportant.)
> 
> Ken W.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
You can have realy good lighting using only radiosity, but you get beter result 
if you use relatively large ambient lights.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Everybody should believe in something: I believe I'll have another drink.

Post a reply to this message