 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Yeah, each light source is a 16x16 area light. Given that the tree has
>> hundreds of thousands of tiny needles - wait, just read the render
>> stats! Look at the number of shadow rays, for crying out loud! o__O
> Over 4 BILLIONS!
Hell yeah.
>> I did also try this with radiosity - but it makes absolutely no
>> visible difference. (Well, given how puny the light sources are, the
>> extra bounces don't contribute much.)
> As Christmass lights are geting smaller and smaller, actual point_lights
> should be "good enough", especialy if you have 100's of them.
With point-lights, the walls are covered by giant needle shapes. It
looks very bizzare and unatural. With area lights, the walls are motled
with shades of light and dark - go look at a real tree, this effect is
actually pretty much right on!
Now, if I actually had *hundreds* of lights on the tree, maybe it
wouldn't matter... but most sets of lights contain 20 or 40 lights, not
several hundred. ;-)
> Don't forget to set fade_distance to a suitably small value.
Already done. 50 cm. (Fading = quadratic.) This makes a big difference...
> If manual placement is to tedious, why not try some procedural
> placement, maybe integrated in the building of the branches.
I don't know what algorithm TomTree uses to built the branches.
> In real
> life, the lights are often placed between branches.
Yeah... maybe I should just wrap a "string" round the tree and use a
physics simulation to let "gravity" position the string? (I can use the
trace() function to make it stop when it hits a branch.)
OTOH... it's not going to be fast!
> If the parceing gets to long, why not use a switch to turn off the
> needles while you place and test the lights?
Already doing that. Takes 30 seconds to parse even without the needles.
(Can't turn the detail down any further because I need to see where I'm
placing things!)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Great image Andrew, with a full set of lights it should be ready for next
> year. :-(
...er, yeah... o__O
I have a dual-core CPU now, so maybe it's time to try out the new
beta... >:-D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 19:04:16 +0000, Orchid XP v3 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>> Great image Andrew, with a full set of lights it should be ready for next
>> year. :-(
>
>...er, yeah... o__O
>
>
>
>
>
>I have a dual-core CPU now, so maybe it's time to try out the new
>beta... >:-D
Lucky you. Go for it!
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v3 nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 03-01-2007 14:03:
>>> Yeah, each light source is a 16x16 area light. Given that the tree
>>> has hundreds of thousands of tiny needles - wait, just read the
>>> render stats! Look at the number of shadow rays, for crying out loud!
>>> o__O
>> Over 4 BILLIONS!
>
> Hell yeah.
>
>>> I did also try this with radiosity - but it makes absolutely no
>>> visible difference. (Well, given how puny the light sources are, the
>>> extra bounces don't contribute much.)
>> As Christmass lights are geting smaller and smaller, actual
>> point_lights should be "good enough", especialy if you have 100's of
>> them.
>
> With point-lights, the walls are covered by giant needle shapes. It
> looks very bizzare and unatural. With area lights, the walls are motled
> with shades of light and dark - go look at a real tree, this effect is
> actually pretty much right on!
>
> Now, if I actually had *hundreds* of lights on the tree, maybe it
> wouldn't matter... but most sets of lights contain 20 or 40 lights, not
> several hundred. ;-)
Just with 12 to 40 the need for area_light will go down, crank that up to 60~80
(3 or 4 sets of 20) and you probably can say area_light good by!
>
>> Don't forget to set fade_distance to a suitably small value.
>
> Already done. 50 cm. (Fading = quadratic.) This makes a big difference...
>
>> If manual placement is to tedious, why not try some procedural
>> placement, maybe integrated in the building of the branches.
>
> I don't know what algorithm TomTree uses to built the branches.
OK! It's not your own tree. Harder to selectively remove elements.
>
>> In real life, the lights are often placed between branches.
>
> Yeah... maybe I should just wrap a "string" round the tree and use a
> physics simulation to let "gravity" position the string? (I can use the
> trace() function to make it stop when it hits a branch.)
>
> OTOH... it's not going to be fast!
>
>> If the parceing gets to long, why not use a switch to turn off the
>> needles while you place and test the lights?
>
> Already doing that. Takes 30 seconds to parse even without the needles.
> (Can't turn the detail down any further because I need to see where I'm
> placing things!)
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Fine day to work off excess energy. Steal something heavy.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
