> 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.

I see that you alweady implemented at least 2 of my suggestions.
Maybe you'll have more luck using 2 cores, each roughly 1/3 or 1/4 the 
thickness of the wall.
Try a pigment rgb -1 for the core.
Maybe adding some high density absorbing media inside the wall could help.


Alain

Post a reply to this message