|
 |
On 6/7/2011 12:54 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> On 06/07/2011 04:24 PM, Samuel Benge wrote:
>> Jim Holsenback<nom### [at] nomail com> wrote:
>>> On 06/06/2011 08:59 PM, clipka wrote:
>>>> Am 07.06.2011 01:40, schrieb Jim Holsenback:
>>>>
>>>>> Question about pretrace_end ... won't a smaller value make more of the
>>>>> samples to be gathered in the final pass? I thought it was better to
>>>>> shoot for having the final pass sample count about half the total.
>>>>
>>>> No. The smaller the pretrace_end, the higher the density the pretrace
>>>> can theoretically produce, and the fewer therefore the spots missed
>>>> during pretrace, which need to be sampled in the final pass (i.e. the
>>>> render proper).
>>>>
>>>> (Theoretically we'd want the final pass sample count to be zero, but
>>>> then we also want the render to finish in our lifetime.)
>>>
>>> in addition to earlier changes I had to increase count to 384 ... it's
>>> not too darn bad, so I think it's worth the cycles to go to 512 for the
>>> beauty run. btw: I also corrected my (holy crap) spelling error in
>>> the sign.
>>
>> Hey Jim,
>>
>> It's looking good!
>>
>> Is the water messing with the radiosity? If so--and you don't plan to
>> have
>> anything reflect in the water--you might be able to use an aoi pattern
>> with a
>> texture_map, using careful color settings to fake fresnel reflections.
>
> I've got radiosity importance set low on the water so I don't think I
> was the source of my radiosity problems ... since the sun is low I was
> wondering how to get it a bit of color, so maybe the aoi pattern/texture
> map idea is worth some investigation.
>
>>
>> You might also want to try the new version of OTO.inc I dropped in
>> p.b.scene-files. I improved the size variation of the bricks and
>> trimmed up the
>> edges.
>
> Cool ... I was playing around with the tile scaling then ran into a seq
> fault (see my post in beta NG) ... so it'll be interesting to see if
> your new take on OTO makes a diff.
It probably won't, and it's not my fault <g> Maybe if you use
superellipsoids instead of rounded boxes, the memory requirement of the
macro will be lower (just a guess).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
