On Sun, 04 Jun 2000 22:02:52 +0300, Kari Kivisalo <kar### [at] kivisalonet>
wrote:

>My point exactly. We need more predictable implementation of radiosity
>and less tweaking.
>
>Now it's almost purely quesswork but since POV wasn't build from ground
>up to produce realistic simulations I shouldn't complain. After all
>realistic doesn't necessarily mean it's good looking :)

However, more realistic renderings tend to be more predictible, at
least in my experience. There have been several scenes that I have
abandoned in the past, because I couldn't reliably predict the results
of the lighting, based upon my experiences with real-world lighting.

POV is certainly getting better in that respect, and I hope the trend
continues. I can easily remember a time before area lights, light
fading, radiosity, photons, etc.   Realistic lighting was nearly
impossible for me to achieve at that time, except for a few special
cases that didn't need any of the "advanced" lighting techniques.

I think trying to make POV-Ray as physically accurate as possible, is
a good goal to strive for. One can always enter some unusual
parameters to achieve unusual or unnatural effects, if so desired.

Later,
Glen Berry

7no### [at] ezwvcom
(Remove the "7" to reply via email.)

Post a reply to this message