 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: GrimDude
Subject: Radiosity makes a difference? (3 images ~42KB bu)
Date: 5 Sep 2000 15:58:50
Message: <39b5507a@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This series of images demonstrates the differences within a scene that
radiosity can make. None of these images has light. RT1 is sans radiosity,
RT2 is sans radiosity with the ambient value of the ground plane set to 1,
RT3 is ground plane set to 0 and radiosity on. The ambient_value setting is
0 for all three images. Render time went from 7 minutes, to 49 minutes, but
please note the settings.
global_settings { ini_option "+w512 +h384 +a0.3 +am2 +r2 +sp8 +ep4 +qr"
max_trace_level 10 assumed_gamma 2.2 ambient_light 0
radiosity { brightness 1
count 600
error_bound 1
nearest_count 3
low_error_factor .3
minimum_reuse .15
pretrace_start .08
pretrace_end .01
gray_threshold 0.5
recursion_limit 2
adc_bailout .01 } }
Grim
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'RadTest1.jpg' (11 KB)
Download 'RadTest2.jpg' (18 KB)
Download 'RadTest3.jpg' (15 KB)
Preview of image 'RadTest1.jpg'
Preview of image 'RadTest2.jpg'
Preview of image 'RadTest3.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
GrimDude wrote:
>
> This series of images demonstrates the differences within a scene that
> radiosity can make. None of these images has light.
But... ...nothing would be visible in the absence of light therefore...
--
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: GrimDude
Subject: Re: Radiosity makes a difference? (3 images ~42KB bu)
Date: 5 Sep 2000 23:44:59
Message: <39b5bdbb@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbell net> wrote in message
news:39B### [at] pacbellnet...
>
>
>
> But... ...nothing would be visible in the absence of light therefore...
>
Okay, none of them uses a light_source. :) Sorry.
Grim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
> GrimDude wrote:
> >
> > This series of images demonstrates the differences within a scene that
> > radiosity can make. None of these images has light.
>
> But... ...nothing would be visible in the absence of light therefore...
These were converted from sonar data...
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
Please visit my website: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: GrimDude
Subject: Re: Radiosity makes a difference? (3 images ~42KB bu)
Date: 7 Sep 2000 03:55:50
Message: <39b74a06@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Okay, I'll just go back to not posting...
Grim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Bob Hughes
Subject: Re: Radiosity makes a difference? (3 images ~42KB bu)
Date: 7 Sep 2000 16:39:20
Message: <39b7fcf8@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"GrimDude" <gri### [at] netzerocom> wrote in message
news:39b5507a@news.povray.org...
| This series of images demonstrates the differences within a scene that
| radiosity can make. None of these images has light. RT1 is sans radiosity,
| RT2 is sans radiosity with the ambient value of the ground plane set to 1,
| RT3 is ground plane set to 0 and radiosity on. The ambient_value setting
is
| 0 for all three images. Render time went from 7 minutes, to 49 minutes,
but
| please note the settings.
It is just the color and diffuse finish that is used for calculating the
radiosity of that isn't it? I don't know if I ever understood for certain
whether ambient was dropped entirely in the MegaPov kind or if the global
ambient of zero was simply a base to start with. Sort of like making sure
it wasn't anything but a common starting point.
Anyway, about your renders. The objects are obviously using a high ambient
and yet the change isn't nearly like that of the plane. I'm not sure what
was being proven here unless it's about ambient being ignored, which as I
just said I've not completely understood.
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
GrimDude wrote:
> Okay, I'll just go back to not posting...
Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
Please visit my website: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: GrimDude
Subject: Re: Radiosity makes a difference? (3 images ~42KB bu)
Date: 8 Sep 2000 03:11:10
Message: <39b8910e@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Actually, everything in the scene (except for the plane in image 2, and
whatever goes on with sky_spheres with a poly_wave) has an ambient value of
0.
I chased the rainbow too, Bob. I adjusted my ambient values to the point
where I didn't see any differences between rad and no-rad renderings. Then,
as I added more complex physical objects to a scene, I would lose control of
light and be forced to adjust every object all over. So, now I just leave
ambient alone. I won't use lens flares, because I had to introduce
ambient_light <1,1,1> to make them work right. Also, one approach on clouds
had to be abandoned because I had adapted high ambient values. Too bad, too.
It was purely texture related.
Anyway, off to render... the animation of this thing.
Grim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <39b8910e@news.povray.org>, "GrimDude"
<gri### [at] netzerocom> wrote:
> I won't use lens flares, because I had to introduce ambient_light
> <1,1,1> to make them work right. Also, one approach on clouds had to
> be abandoned because I had adapted high ambient values. Too bad, too.
> It was purely texture related.
Maybe you should leave ambient_light at 1, and mess with the default
texture instead. That way, all textures which specify an ambient will
get it, but you can set the default to 0. If you still want a way to
globally control your ambient values, make a multiplier variable:
#declare AmbMult = 0.15;
...
finish {ambient Val*AmbMult}
--
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
