 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Is that wall an image_map or bump_map or something else?
Christian Froeschlin <chr### [at] chrfr de> wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
> > Bit quiet on p.b.i. at the moment, so here's some shiny things.
>
> Sweet! What's the max_trace_level?
>
> > These are the Platonic, Archimedean and Catalan solids. How many can you name
> > without resorting to wikipedia or wolfram? :-)
>
> Hmm let's see, tetrahedron, cube, um, ... oh well ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> The photon mapping works quite well with those objects.
Beautifully. Although with count=7e7 and 31 targets, the photon gathering stage
took well over an hour!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christian Froeschlin <chr### [at] chrfrde> wrote:
> Sweet! What's the max_trace_level?
I left it at the default. I'm sure raising it would make some sort of
difference, but it looked fine so I didn't worry.
> > These are the Platonic, Archimedean and Catalan solids. How many can you name
> > without resorting to wikipedia or wolfram? :-)
> Hmm let's see, tetrahedron, cube, um, ... oh well ;)
Hehe. Before now, I could have named the platonics and probably half the
archimedeans (although I wouldn't have known they were archimedeans). I still
can't remember any of the catalans. They're all triakis-this and
rhombic-that... :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"jhu" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Is that wall an image_map or bump_map or something else?
Funny, I thought of it as a floor... it's an isosurface. If you look closely,
you can see relief detail illuminated purely by the caustics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Pragnell wrote:
> "jhu" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>> Is that wall an image_map or bump_map or something else?
>
> Funny, I thought of it as a floor... it's an isosurface.
I think a simple plane with a proper normal block would have resulted
in a practically identical image but much faster.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> I think a simple plane with a proper normal block would have resulted
> in a practically identical image but much faster.
Would the shading due to the caustics still be correct?
In any case, using an isosurface instead of a plane didn't slow it down that
much. And I just can't help thinking of normals as 'cheating' ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Would the shading due to the caustics still be correct?
Why wouldn't it?
> In any case, using an isosurface instead of a plane didn't slow it down that
> much. And I just can't help thinking of normals as 'cheating' ;-)
Everything is "cheating" in rendering. It's just smart to use the
cheats which will produce the same results faster.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Bit quiet on p.b.i. at the moment, so here's some shiny things.
>
> These are the Platonic, Archimedean and Catalan solids. How many can you name
> without resorting to wikipedia or wolfram? :-)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Really nice, as usual ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
> > Would the shading due to the caustics still be correct?
>
> Why wouldn't it?
Well, if my isosurface were more deeply ridged, there'd be shadowed areas in the
photon maps that normals wouldn't produce. But this probably isn't happening
here, I ended up with very shallow features.
Aside from that, I just assumed that the normal block wouldn't be used when
applying photon maps to surfaces. For no good reason, other than that normals
aren't used in radiosity unless specified. I can't find any mention of it in
the docs. I'll try it later, then I'll know... :)
> Everything is "cheating" in rendering. It's just smart to use the
> cheats which will produce the same results faster.
True. At least (in general) cheating with actual geometry is a little closer to
reality. But I agree it would seem to make little or no difference in this
case.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
>> Bit quiet on p.b.i. at the moment, so here's some shiny things.
>
> Ooooooo! A spaaaarkly!
>
LOL
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
