"Dan P" <dan### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:408498ee$1@news.povray.org...
>
> I must be misunderstanding radiosity -- I figured because it was so far
> away, it wasn't close enough to the moon to reflect any light to it
> because of fall-off.

Nice to see people discussing this here.  ;-)

Well, um, hey... isn't sky_sphere considered infinitely remote? And yet that
still affects everything else when it comes to radiosity. Okay, wait, bad
example there; considering it usually affects things globally anyhow without
having a finish property, that might not have any true distance.

I've used looks_like (sphere) for making the Sun before, on the assumption
radiosity of a very diffuse object will add to the other objects no matter
how far away. Likewise, false window panes meant to be oversaturated with
outdoor lighting, or light panels in the ceiling, even though closer in to
the scene subjects. Thing is, without skylight the blackness of space can
overwhelm the scene due to darkness also being factored into the radiosity.
Or at least I always thought of it in that way.

I just never considered there to be a distance limitation for radiosity,
other than proximity having weight in the calculation, perhaps because it
isn't really a light source and is more of a color effect which could be
seen from any distance based on it's size and diffuseness and/or ambience.
Much more related to object presence rather than illumination.

-- 
Bob H.
http://www.3digitaleyes.com

Post a reply to this message