 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am I correct in assuming that the very bright spot with streaks of
light in the corner of the room, while it might look cool, is actually a
rendering error (light leaks from underneath the wall even though it
shouldn't) and shouldn't be there?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tag povrayorg> wrote:
> Am I correct in assuming that the very bright spot with streaks of
> light in the corner of the room, while it might look cool, is actually a
> rendering error (light leaks from underneath the wall even though it
> shouldn't) and shouldn't be there?
Yup.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Among other things, clipka saw fit to write:
> Actually, the walls I use *do* have a thickness. It doesn't even matter
> whether I use meshes or CSG.
Coincident surfaces maybe? If each wall is a different block, do these
blocks overlap?
--
light_source{9+9*x,1}camera{orthographic look_at(1-y)/4angle 30location
9/4-z*4}light_source{-9*z,1}union{box{.9-z.1+x clipped_by{plane{2+y-4*x
0}}}box{z-y-.1.1+z}box{-.1.1+x}box{.1z-.1}pigment{rgb<.8.2,1>}}//Jellby
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot wrote:
> "Samuel Benge" <stb### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht
> news:web.4959339e5b5ba55bf8e75d050@news.povray.org...
>> There's a quick workaround for 3.7 radiosity. 3.7's radiosity doesn't seem
>> to
>> like high count values, so to get more detail you can apply a small-scale
>> global surface normal to all objects in your scene like so:
>
> Yes, that is true indeed, now that you mention it. I almost
> automatically/unconsciously do this in many of my scenes. Don't remember
> were the trick came from...
I keep a section of my #default line ready for this all the time. Who
knows who started doing it first. Maybe it's like the stacked planes
trick for volumetrics. I'm pretty sure several people thought they had
originated the idea (including me), only to find out later it had
already been done. :)
Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jellby <me### [at] privacynet> wrote:
> Coincident surfaces maybe? If each wall is a different block, do these
> blocks overlap?
The initial thing I used was a mesh, which was basically a box, with a smaller
box cut out of it to form the room, and open at the bottom. The floor was
raised a little bit to make it wasn't coincident with the bottom surfaces of
that mesh.
I later tried to do the same with CSG, again using a box with a smaller box cut
out, this time leaving the bottom closed.
Same effect.
I'm not sure which version I used for the shots I posted, but at the moment I
actually don't really care too much.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"stbenge" <^@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:495a9aa1@news.povray.org...
>
> I keep a section of my #default line ready for this all the time. Who
> knows who started doing it first. Maybe it's like the stacked planes trick
> for volumetrics. I'm pretty sure several people thought they had
> originated the idea (including me), only to find out later it had already
> been done. :)
>
Yes, that is another of those things!
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
