-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Kenneth wrote:
> CShake <cshake+pov### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> 
>> Thanks, the increased samples with fewer intervals makes a huge
>> difference in render time, I tried this scene first with 30 intervals
>> (ratio 0.5) and minimum 10 samples, then 1 interval with 100 samples and
>> it ran at less than 1/4 the time and produced superior results.
>> Seems like my problem has been fixed!
> 
> Good to hear. (I ran your test code and got the same results you did; but I
> didn't think about the media parameters being at their defaults.)
> 
> Meanwhile, I dug up another problem-scene, just to show off another oddity, that
> may or may not have a similar root cause to the one in the link I posted
> earlier. (I'll have to run it with the latest beta to see if this one is
> solved.) The blue 'couch' is media-filled--emission and absorption media-- with
> an IOR and reflection. The only difference between the two images is the
> scattering-media-filled spotlight in the 2nd image. (A cone is the media
> container, which I made partly visible.)  As you can see, the spotlight doesn't
> really impinge on the couch; but the entire couch goes wacky!
> 
	The first thing I'd try is to increase the max trace level. Then if
it doesn't change anything, remove elements from the couch one by
one starting with the reflection then the IOR.

		Jerome
- --
mailto:jeb### [at] freefr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeb### [at] jabberfr
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkmo3uYACgkQd0kWM4JG3k80wgCeNHnqrzDQ5qru6yPt0XGYcQh3
rIIAniOdN2mI0TGwYzfT6ip2pgH3LJrV
=/Dr0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Post a reply to this message