Warp wrote:

>   So you basically do the exact same thing that the current radiosity
> code does, but without the optimizations? (The current radiosity method
> *uses* the monte-carlo method, with optimizations.)
> 
>   I really fail to see the advantage.

I can at least see that there are big differences in the images posted
to this thread - of course, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. And
I like images done with Fidos's patch the most. It would be interesting
to see if one could achieve identical lighting with Povray's radiosity.
The stupid thing is that you have to tweak the settings so much - with
brute force you just...wait :)

Post a reply to this message

Severi Salminen <sev### [at] NOTTHISsaunalahtifiinvalid> wrote:
> I also guess that it should be very easy to parallelize Monte Carlo path
>  tracing to take advantage of multiple CPU cores.
For all the rendering posted, I used SMPOV (http://www.it-berater.org/smpov.htm)
to speed up rendering (I use a quad core Q6600) and it works fine.

Regrads,
Fidos

Post a reply to this message

Hello,

A new test scene. I apologize to the author of these scene because I didn't find
back where I downloaded it.

It is the first scene that I have a real feeling of improvement. Moreover the
rendering was clean from the first iteration (outside rendering are far quicker
to converge because the sky is reached in one or two ray shoots).

Any comment wellcome.

Regards,
Fidos.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'tate.01.jpg' (168 KB)

Preview of image 'tate.01.jpg'

nice!  Really clean.  Seems like one of those Ambient Occlusion-only scenes.

It's relatively highres and clean of noises.  Care to post rendertime 
and CPU?

Post a reply to this message

On Wed,  6 Feb 2008 14:39:11 EST, "fidos" <fid### [at] wanadoofr> wrote:

>Any comment wellcome.

That is the Tate, nicely modelled. The sky should be interesting it being in St.
Ives.

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> It's relatively highres and clean of noises.  Care to post rendertime
> and CPU?
I leaved it running for 8 hours on 4 CPUs (a Intel Q6600 2.4 GHz). But these
scene was clean of noise after few iterations. I leaved it running for
antialiasing but I can't tell when it was good.

Regards,
Fidos.

Post a reply to this message

fidos wrote:
> I leaved it running for 8 hours on 4 CPUs (a Intel Q6600 2.4 GHz). But these
> scene was clean of noise after few iterations. I leaved it running for
> antialiasing but I can't tell when it was good.

Care to post series of smaller renders (from this or another scene) with
different rendering times to see the actual difference in quality. And
when to expect decent quality.

Post a reply to this message

fidos wrote:
> Any comment wellcome.

  When the pov3.7beta sources are published it may be interesting to see
an implementation with it, to see how it works there.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> fidos wrote:
>> Any comment wellcome.
> 
>   When the pov3.7beta sources are published it may be interesting to see
> an implementation with it, to see how it works there.

  Of course assuming the reflection/refraction issue is solved.

Post a reply to this message

Wow!
Skaters dream! Or nightmare, depending on how good you are   =:^,

Lovely.


-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

"fidos" <fid### [at] wanadoofr> wrote in message 
news:web.47aa0cdfdcec6a9fd06f7e6f0@news.povray.org...
> Hello,
>
> A new test scene. I apologize to the author of these scene because I 
> didn't find
> back where I downloaded it.
>
> It is the first scene that I have a real feeling of improvement. Moreover 
> the
> rendering was clean from the first iteration (outside rendering are far 
> quicker
> to converge because the sky is reached in one or two ray shoots).
>
> Any comment wellcome.
>
> Regards,
> Fidos.
>

Post a reply to this message