Am 27.01.2012 21:58, schrieb Florian Siegmund:
> I did another render with reduced fade_distance so you can better see what
> disturbs my eye..

Those artifacts look weird indeed.

Could it be that you have some coincident-surfaces problem? Is the 
bottom of the bowl's "foot" coincident with the plane on which it sits? 
If so, the artifacts aren't all that surprising, and lifting the bowl a 
bit off the plane should solve the issue.

Post a reply to this message

On 29-1-2012 17:31, Florian Siegmund wrote:
> *absorbing media* are the magic words. Although I'm not sure if it uses a
> physically correct distance formula, the material looks better now.

This is looking very good. No artefacts.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>
> Those artifacts look weird indeed.
>
> Could it be that you have some coincident-surfaces problem? Is the
> bottom of the bowl's "foot" coincident with the plane on which it sits?
> If so, the artifacts aren't all that surprising, and lifting the bowl a
> bit off the plane should solve the issue.

No coincident surfaces, as far as I know. I am aware of this 'resident evil' and
I fight it wherever I can :)
The only thing I still have to work on is the bowl's curvature. At the touching
points of some csg objects the surface doesn't look smooth and flowing yet; the
refraction still looks a bit 'broken' in certain areas - between the rim and the
'body', for instance.

Regards,
Florian

Post a reply to this message

"Florian Siegmund" <flo### [at] gmxat> wrote:
> *absorbing media* are the magic words. Although I'm not sure if it uses a
> physically correct distance formula, the material looks better now.

I like absorbing media because it makes more intuitive sense to me how it
relates to physical reality.  (I have trouble making sense of fade_color.)

The problems are that absorbing media are slower and (ironically to your
experience) I find them prone to artifacts.

Post a reply to this message