 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Slime
Subject: Re: Why do ISO surfaces slow down radiosity so much? - 1 attachment
Date: 11 Apr 2002 17:55:41
Message: <3cb6065d$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It's not that hopeless, you could store all function values evaluated and
> use them later for new rays, together with the known max_gradient you can
> reduce the number of necessary new function evaluations this way, but you
> would have to design efficient methods and data structures for accessing
> the stored values and the memory requirements can be enormous.
True.
Chances are, unfortunately, that using these remembered sample points would
only make the render time longer.
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
[ http://www.slimeland.com/images/ ]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wow, I didn't expect this much response! Thank you to everyone who
has responded. OK, so basically the problem is that an Isosurface
requires more time to calculate the effects of a ray, and radiosity
shoots many rays, so the combination of Isosurface and Radiosity = SLOW.
<smile>
Maybe I need to optimize my Isosurfaces? I'm not sure they can be
though, they're fairly simple; I've shown one at the end of this message.
The other six Isosurfaces in the scene are identacle except for the
scaling in the two functions. Can this be optimized for speed at all?
Or maybe a better question; can objects be excluded from the
radiosity calculations?? I could group these with a shadowless fill
light if I can get them to be ignored by radiosity.
These rocks are part of a reef tank picture I'm trying to put
together... an example of the WIP is attached.
#declare Rough = function { pigment { wrinkles scale 0.75 } }
#declare Rock = function { x*x + y*y + z*z - 1 }
isosurface {
function { Rock(x/3,y,z/2) + Rough(x+1,y+0.2,z+3.2).gray*.75 }
contained_by{sphere{0,2}}
threshold 0
accuracy 0.001
max_gradient 5.884
texture { rockTex }
scale 4
translate <0,2,-16>
}
Thanks again for all of the responses!
--
Rich Allen
(Remove SPAM from my address to reply by e-mail)
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'Tank.jpg' (36 KB)
Preview of image 'Tank.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Christoph Hormann
Subject: Re: Why do ISO surfaces slow down radiosity so much? - 1 attachment - 1 attachment
Date: 12 Apr 2002 04:22:21
Message: <3CB69939.DA52425D@gmx.de>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rich wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> #declare Rough = function { pigment { wrinkles scale 0.75 } }
> #declare Rock = function { x*x + y*y + z*z - 1 }
>
For 'Rock' you should use the internal 'f_sphere' function from
functions.inc because it's faster and has a constant gradient (like when
using 'sqrt(x*x + y*y + z*z) -1')
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 11 Apr. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Sir Charles W Shults III
Subject: Re: Why do ISO surfaces slow down radiosity so much? - 1 attachment
Date: 12 Apr 2002 11:10:40
Message: <3cb6f8f0$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Understood
Cheers!
Chip Shults
My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip
light_source{0#macro k(_)sphere{13*z+i*_.5pigment{agate}finish{phong.3}}#end
1}#macro _(s,i,g)#if(s)k(1)k(-1)_(s-1i+g,g)#end#end _(3x+3*y<2,-2>)_(2x,y)_(
2x-y,x)_(4x*3,-y)_(4<3,1>x)_(2x*6,-y)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmx de> wrote in
news:3CB69939.DA52425D@gmx.de:
> For 'Rock' you should use the internal 'f_sphere' function from
> functions.inc because it's faster and has a constant gradient (like when
> using 'sqrt(x*x + y*y + z*z) -1')
Cool, I'll try that tonight. Thanks!
--
Rich Allen
(Remove SPAM from my address to reply by e-mail)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
