 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 14:56:36 +0100, "Andrew Coppin"
<orp### [at] btinternet com> wrote:
>or c) you want to view the "waves" from a near-perpendicular
>direction, and you want the front-most waves to obscure the more
>distant waves ;-)
Use a function-based height field intersected with a box, it might
work for you. You can get a major speed increase.
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Height field? Yes... that should be *much* faster just for this...
Andrew.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3d92fd1f$1@news.povray.org>,
"Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote:
> BTW do you really need an iso for your water? Photons work fine with a normal.
Since his problem seems to be too many photons, this won't make a
difference. And a truely perturbed surface will give more accurate
results, and with large waves will look much better. A normal is only
useful for small ripples and disturbed water, not for large waves which
cover up further waves. A height field might do better for speed, if the
triangle artifacts aren't too bad, but it wouldn't help his memory use
at all.
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Christopher James Huff" <chr### [at] maccom> wrote in message
news:chr### [at] netplexaussieorg...
>
> Since his problem seems to be too many photons, this won't make a
> difference. And a truely perturbed surface will give more accurate
Well, I was thinking more of render-time. Of course there are many situations
where a normal is not enough.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Well, I was thinking more of render-time. Of course there are many situations
> where a normal is not enough.
Well, if it doesn't slow down renders without photons too much, it
shouldn't slow down renders with them. It would make the collecting
stage slower, though.
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Christopher James Huff" <chr### [at] maccom> wrote in message
news:chr### [at] netplexaussieorg...
>
> Well, if it doesn't slow down renders without photons too much, it
> shouldn't slow down renders with them. It would make the collecting
> stage slower, though.
>
True - but are there any circs when an iso didn't slow down rendering? Also, and
IMHO, if the render doesn't slow to a crawl when combining isos, media and
reflectivity then you're doing something wrong....
All I was really trying to say was that, if you're just trying to influence the
paths of photons, then a normal may be all you need (I should own up that until
the other day I didn't know that normals would influence photons, and therefore
used an iso quite unnecesserily).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I wonder if this problem is similar to one I'm having with a scene involving
lasers reflectiong of mirrors around a room.
Media photons are used to make the reflected beam visible, but the most
distant beams don't appear. Could this problem be caused by the same thing
as Andrew's problem?
Rohan _e_ii
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
