On 19-6-2013 16:24, scott wrote:
>> I have never met any problems or artefacts when using SunPos so, imho,
>> there is no need to divide.
>
> That's just because you never tried to put a sphere at that position
> before :-) Also I haven't done a thorough investigation, but the
> accuracy issues you run into seem to depend on the size of other objects
> in your scene (and maybe the camera setup?). Whilst the /1000 factor for
> placing the sphere might work in this particular scene, it may become
> invisible again in a different scene (or work fine without the /1000).

Oh yes, I did! ;-) However, I only use SunPos for my main light source. 
I hardly use a visible sun.

>
> I suppose the ultimate solution would be to incorporate the sun in the
> sky_sphere pigment at the physically correct brightness (which would
> save having to use any arbitrary values for "very far away"), and for
> the POV team to implement something similar to the sky importance
> sampling in mcpov for the radiosity algorithm (so you don't need a
> really high count to reliably pick up the bright sun).

That would be a good idea.

>
>> Maybe, but those are special cases needing special solutions.
>
> I never thought I'd hear a glossy reflective surface being called a
> "special case" in a raytracing forum - what next, a checkered plane is
> also a special case? :-O

LOL good point. I admit that I was talking from a strictly personal 
point of view...


> Bring on mcpov merged into POV 3.7 !! If I had the time I'd definitely
> give it a shot.

I am too happy with 3.7 for the things I do. ;-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message