Reactor schrieb:

>> Yes, I recall someone giving it a try also (the scene didn't feature the
>> child back then) - but IIRC that person "cheated" by having the door
>> open much wider...
> 
> I never posted the results for that - the scene was really my first introduction
> to MCPov and I got it working much later without changing the scene as posted,
> albeit before my rebuild.  I do not have the scene anymore, but I have trouble
> running MCPov on this machine anyway.

That must have been someone else then. But as I said, MCPov is no longer 
an option for me anyway (not for this case at any rate).

>> I'm also using a POV-Ray 3.7 beta feature for the child's clothing
>> (diffuse backside illumination), so MCPov is no longer an option anyway.
> 
> If you don't mind posting it, I am curious as to how your radiosity block looks.

As it is undergoing frequent experimental changes I'd need to 
reconstruct it first from the current settings.


>>  > Anyway, isn't that bleed through more of an error bound and reuse
>>> of samples issue as opposed to depth?
>> If I had the slightest idea what kind of error it is, I'd be a good deal
>> happier :-)
> 
> I hope the walls are of realistic thickness, and not a single flat polygon!

Not only do they possess true volume of course - they also have their 
interior texture set to pitch black, and another pitch black core 
occupying 80% of the walls' inside... still no luck.

I guess the main problem is that I need very bright light in the 
adjacent room, so that even a radiosity sample deemed to have a "quality 
  rating" as low as 0.1% on this side of the door will still have a 
noticeable effect.

I'm thinking of changing the interpretation of the nearest_count 
parameter: While it is currently interpreted simply as the desired 
number of valid samples in the vicinity of any given point - however 
low-quality they might be - I think it would be better to interpret it 
as the desired "quality rating sum", i.e. a setting of 10 could be 
satisfied by e.g. 10 samples of 100% quality or 100 samples of 10% 
quality. This would (hopefully) lead to more high-quality samples to be 
gathered, which would result in a stronger suppression of the 
low-quality ones.

Post a reply to this message