|
 |
On 2 Mar 2003 10:55:38 -0500, Rich wrote:
> Greg Edwards <edw### [at] hotmail comremovethis> wrote in
> news:5uo4aatm80da.1vz81td2bfk8o$.dlg@40tude.net:
>
>> You'll notice something very unsettling about the green ball...
>>
>> It's the other feature of my patch (currently engeniusly titled
>> GE-POV) -- no_radiosity. This feature works in the same way as
>> no_shadow or no_image only it affects radiosity calculations.
>
>
> Does this also result in a decreased render time if used on Isosurfaces?
> I have a scene that uses Iso-rocks, which kill the render time if radiosity
> is used. The rocks themselves get little to no benefit from the radiosity
> calculations, so being able to label them with no_radiosity would be ideal
> if that negated the increased render time.
>
> Rich Allen
It may, but the no_radiosity keyword means that the no_radiosity object
will not affect the radiosity of other objects. In the scene I posted, the
green ball had no_radiosity but it still had radiosity lighting. The
difference it made was that the no_radiosity green ball had no little dark
shadow on the ground like the yellow ball did. no_radiosity should prevent
self-casting radiosity (similar to self-casting shadows) which may speed up
your isosurface render and the rendering of the surrounding objects should
have a slight speed increase. Just keep in mind the funny shadows that
no_radiosity objects have. (like the green ball)
Another speed issue is that the current binary (compiled with Visual C++ 6
Pro) runs noticeably slower than the original POV compiled using the Intel
compiler. I'll try and address this when I make a public release. I'll be
sure to post the source too.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
