On 13-12-2011 12:41, Ive wrote:
> Am 13.12.2011 09:12, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>
>>> Especially given that this render uses poor AA.
>>
>> Why? Not that poor, though.
>>
>
> The staircases? See attachment. Even more prominent at the sunlight
> shadows from the facade beams.

Sorry, my fault. I was thinking of something else, don't ask me why. 
This is of course very average indeed.


>> 0.8?! I use 0.05 as otherwise the tiles are much too reflective for my
>> taste. 0.8 gives the tiles a mirror aspect which I certainly do not
>> want. See image with 0.8 instead of 0.05.
>> I might increase that value a bit though.... ;-)
>>
>
> Well, I said "starting point" and not that I would leave it this way ;)
>
> I just checked it out in our kitchen and the tiles *are* becoming a
> perfect mirror (slightly blurred though) and their own colors and
> ornamentation gets completely lost.

My tiles here are different ones. They are floor tiles with a mostly 
matte surface. They could even be rendered with only specular, but I 
prefer a bit of reflection.

>
> So the high reflection does not look *that* wrong to me. Major problem
> is that it makes it obvious that the floor is a perfect plane missing
> the expected irregularity in tile alignment and the missing joints/gaps.

Interestingly, the floor *is* composed of separate tiles with bevelled 
edges :-) There is however hardly a gap and the tiles are well-aligned.

>
> Anyway it is just about finding the right balance between real-world
> physics and faking it as usual within ray-tracing. Even with so called
> unbiased render engines this keeps true (or maybe even more, because
> flaws become also more obvious) as I'm currently playing around with the
> trial version of the Maxwell renderer.

Indeed.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message