Well here is one of my 1st radiosity tests, and I have a couple of
questions....1st here is how I set my radiosity:
radiosity {
    brightness       3.3
    count            400
    distance_maximum 33.0
    error_bound      0.4
    gray_threshold   0.5
    low_error_factor 0.8
    minimum_reuse    0.015
    nearest_count    6
    recursion_limit  2
  }

Ok so...can anyone help me understand where the blotchiness alonng the
underside of the tube might have come from....the bands along the
second bend from the right are confusing me as well. 
The are two lightsources....a 7x7 (adaptive 4 jitter on) area light
scaled by 4 towards the front right and just below the camera, and a
spotlight placed above,  behind, and slightly left of the blue cube.
Any ideas will be most welcome....Thanks - Oldstench

Post a reply to this message

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'radtest.jpg' (97 KB)

Preview of image 'radtest.jpg'

TonyB discovered that it was max_trace_level causing the blotchiness, but
that might only affect scenes with reflection or refractions.

Josh

Oldstench wrote:

> Well here is one of my 1st radiosity tests, and I have a couple of
> questions....1st here is how I set my radiosity:
> radiosity {
>     brightness       3.3
>     count            400
>     distance_maximum 33.0
>     error_bound      0.4
>     gray_threshold   0.5
>     low_error_factor 0.8
>     minimum_reuse    0.015
>     nearest_count    6
>     recursion_limit  2
>   }
>
> Ok so...can anyone help me understand where the blotchiness alonng the
> underside of the tube might have come from....the bands along the
> second bend from the right are confusing me as well.
> The are two lightsources....a 7x7 (adaptive 4 jitter on) area light
> scaled by 4 towards the front right and just below the camera, and a
> spotlight placed above,  behind, and slightly left of the blue cube.
> Any ideas will be most welcome....Thanks - Oldstench

--
Josh English -- Lexiphanic Lethomaniac
eng### [at] spiritonecom
The POV-Ray Cyclopedia http://www.spiritone.com/~english/cyclopedia/

Post a reply to this message

"Oldstench" <SPA### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:evufrssnlb3v60oeni77urpn58dsu49ii7@4ax.com...
|
| Ok so...can anyone help me understand where the blotchiness alonng the
| underside of the tube might have come from....the bands along the
| second bend from the right are confusing me as well.

What's the tube made up of?  How was it created in other words.
And you seem to be using official POV-Ray.  Makes a big difference in how
radiosity is set up in MegaPov if you have that instead.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 7 Sep 2000 15:51:55 -0500, "Bob Hughes"
<per### [at] aolcom?subject=PoV-News:> wrote:

>What's the tube made up of?  How was it created in other words.
>And you seem to be using official POV-Ray.  Makes a big difference in how
>radiosity is set up in MegaPov if you have that instead.
>
>Bob
>
>
The tube was modelled in Rhino and exported into moray as a .UDO. And
yes I am using official POV.... Should I be using MegaPov?

One Smelly Guy.

Post a reply to this message

"Oldstench" <SPA### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:9b0grs0m0t2i10s77repjak0tk1t693lnm@4ax.com...
| On Thu, 7 Sep 2000 15:51:55 -0500, "Bob Hughes"
| <per### [at] aolcom?subject=PoV-News:> wrote:
|
| >What's the tube made up of?  How was it created in other words.
| >And you seem to be using official POV-Ray.  Makes a big difference in how
| >radiosity is set up in MegaPov if you have that instead.
| >
| >Bob
| >
| >
| The tube was modelled in Rhino and exported into moray as a .UDO. And
| yes I am using official POV.... Should I be using MegaPov?

Ah ha, well then it might very well be a case of inside-out triangles, but I
don't really know much about that.
Yes, Megapov is the way to go when doing radiosity renders since you can
practically get by with simply a radiosity{} and ambient_light 0 in the
global_settings and not worry too much about the settings.  Defaults do
well.  Still need to invoke the radiosity as usual with a +qr on command
line or ini_option "+qr" in the global_settings block also.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

> TonyB discovered that it was max_trace_level causing the blotchiness, but
> that might only affect scenes with reflection or refractions.

Nathan 'discovered' it. I only put his discovery to use.

Post a reply to this message

Great render, but you really didn't need Rhino, did you? :)

Grim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 8 Sep 2000 02:40:20 -0500, "GrimDude" <gri### [at] netzerocom>
wrote:

>Great render, but you really didn't need Rhino, did you? :)
>
>Grim
>

I needed Rhino for the tube thing...I am a visual person, I enjoy
doing 3d art (a visual media), and I personally find that coding in
pure pov script is counterintuitive. Please do not get me wrong, I
have the greatest respect for those of you who can do the incredible
scenes you do without the use of a modeller, but again, I find that
hard-coding a scene is totally not for me. 
For example...the tube thingy...there is no way in hell I would have
been able to code that and get it exactly where I wanted it and how I
wanted it. But in Rhino, draw a curve, draw a circle tangent to the
curve, extrude the circle on the curve, cap the holes, bevel and
export. A grand total of 1 minute of my time and it is exactly what I
want. 
I really do not want to start a war over the merits of coding vs.
modelling (and believe me, I would like to learn a little bit more
about coding so that I can do some interesting math equations visually
<some things you simply can not do with a modeller>) but I just wanted
to get a chance to defend my reasons for using one. (Not to mention
there does seem to be a bit of arrogance in your follow-up Grim, even
if it was spoken in jest, I could kinda feel it.) Ok sorry for the
rant.
Oldstench.

BTW I am interested in seeing how you would code that tube thingy.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 08 Sep 2000 04:23:05 -0400, Oldstench wrote:
>
>For example...the tube thingy...there is no way in hell I would have
>been able to code that and get it exactly where I wanted it and how I
>wanted it. But in Rhino, draw a curve, draw a circle tangent to the
>curve, extrude the circle on the curve, cap the holes, bevel and
>export. A grand total of 1 minute of my time and it is exactly what I
>want. 

Wow now that lot confuses me even before I've seen it on the screen, 
which for me would just make it worse.  

I'd probably do the tube with a blob made of spheres and a couple
of while loops, I could add a component which would make it start
off fat and be quite thin at the other end.  I'd probably start it
off something like this:

    blob{
         #local EarRot =0;
           threshold 0.1
           #while(EarRot <46)
             sphere{<0,0.,0>, 0.125, 0.5  translate y*0.75 rotate z*-EarRot}
             #local EarRot = EarRot+2;
           #end
        }  // End of Blob. 

This would be tiny, and I've scaled it up quite a bit in the scene that
I'm using it, but you get the idea.  Maybe I've been raytracing too long
but when I read this code I can see the object but modellers just confuse
me.  Each to his own.  

-- 
Cheers
Steve              email mailto:ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet

%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee  0 pps. 

web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/

or  http://start.at/zero-pps

  1:44pm  up 17 days, 17:57,  3 users,  load average: 1.09, 1.15, 1.13

Post a reply to this message