> Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
>> Robert, as Alain and clipka said, you should try the last incarnation...
>> works fine here: in fact, I was not able to reproduce the artifacts I
>> got with the pool balls: surely I was doing something really weird with
>> the texture maps.
>>
>> And it's easier to setup than media, more consistent and better looking,
>> but unfortunately it's very slow, at least for scenes which consist
>> mostly on translucent objects (as much as a x10 increase in rendering
>> time for this shot). Oh, well...
>>
>> --
>> Jaime
>

> (and the radiosity fixes were implemented). Thanks for the tips and for setting
> me straight guys, much appreciated.
>
> After reading through all the docs and playing around a bit today I came up with
> this simple scene to test things out with radiosity. The top version uses three
> identical superellipsoids lit by an area light and two shadowless fill lights.
> In the bottom version the only change is the addition of subsurface in the
> finish block of each cube, using a different translucency color for each. Each
> cube is one POV-unit, with mm_per_unit 5.
>

>
> The only drawback is that the SSLT version took 60 times longer to render than
> the non-SSLT version. 20% of this extra time is for the SSLT calculations, but

> the SSLT.
>
> A very useful optimization for subsurface rendering would be a parameter to
> ignore area light calculations within the subsurface material (if desired). This
> would speed up render times considerably, while still keeping the realistic soft
> shadows. For instance, when I rendered a version of this scene /without/ the
> area light the SSLT version only took 5 times longer than the non-SSLT version
> /with/ area light.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> www.McGregorFineArt.com
>
Did you use adaptive 0?
In this scene, it would speed things up without affecting quality: Any 
problem area, if any, would be out of view.


Alain

Post a reply to this message