"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> "nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > "clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> > > It seems that 3.6.1c is somewhat closer to the "real thing" in general - but
> > > that for some reasons it gives exceptionally bad results on the left side of
> > > the pedestal's top.
> > What bad results? You're talking about (a), right?
> No, to me (a) looks more realistic than all the others - I'm talking about (b).
Ok. (a) looked the best, obviously, so I thought it was strange of you to be
> > > This also shows that 3.6.1 radiosity is far from perfect
> > Why?
> 'cuz it gives you significantly different results depending on whether you save
> and later re-load the whole smash. Taking some more samples should reduce
> artifacts, but not change anything dramatically.
Are you sure you used the same settings for both? If you don't write down
concrete values, default values are used and if one scene sets a value for an
attribute and the other doesn't, the default value may indeed have great
With my own tests it's the contrary: a single radiosity pass always gives the
> An interesting side note though: Did you know that you actually don't get the
> specified count for all your samples? Instead, the effective count decreases
> drastically with trace depth. In fact all your quality settings do.
Hmm, I expected it to be an upper limit, yes. The trace you're talking about is
from the pretrace step or is the "bounces" number?
Post a reply to this message