POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.unofficial.patches : 'normals on' in radiosity is undocumented? Server Time
2 Sep 2024 16:21:00 EDT (-0400)
  'normals on' in radiosity is undocumented? (Message 1 to 4 of 4)  
From: Nieminen Juha
Subject: 'normals on' in radiosity is undocumented?
Date: 22 Dec 1999 09:56:12
Message: <3860e68c@news.povray.org>
At least I didn't find it in the megapov documentation (except the complete
history section).

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/


Post a reply to this message

From: Nieminen Juha
Subject: Re: 'normals on' in radiosity is undocumented?
Date: 22 Dec 1999 10:01:51
Message: <3860e7df@news.povray.org>
It seems to be 'normal on' instead of 'normals on' (discovered by
trial-and-error method).
  It now is reasonably fast (2 minutes and 40 seconds with 'normal on' and
1 minute 19 seconds without). Good job.

  It seems to work better now, but why does the "fake" gap look so different
from the real gap? It doesn't look wrong, just different.
  Here is (again) the test scene:

global_settings
{
  #if(version=3.1)
    ambient_light 4
    radiosity
    { count 300
      nearest_count 5
      error_bound .2
      recursion_limit 2
      low_error_factor .5
      gray_threshold 0
      minimum_reuse .015
      brightness 8
      distance_maximum .1
    }
  #else
    ambient_light 0
    ini_option "Preview_Start_Size=8"
    ini_option "Preview_End_Size=4"
    radiosity
    { count 120
      nearest_count 5
      error_bound 1
      recursion_limit 4
      low_error_factor .5
      gray_threshold 0.0
      minimum_reuse 0.015
      brightness 2.8
      max_sample 2
      adc_bailout 0.01/2
      normal on
    }
  #end
}

camera { location <-1.99,0,-1.99> look_at z*2 angle 40 }
light_source
{ <-1.99,.99,-1.99>, 1
  spotlight point_at <0,-1,2> radius 15 falloff 15
}

difference
{ box { <-2,-1,-2><2,1,2> inverse }
  box
  { <-.1,-.9999,-.1><.1,.9999,.1>
    rotate y*45 scale <1,1,.5> translate <-.5,0,2>
  }
  pigment { rgb 1 }
  normal
  { gradient x 1 slope_map { [0 <0,1>][.1 <1,1>][.1 <1,0>][1 <1,0>] }
    scale 1.8
  }
}
box { <-1.999,-1,-2><-2,1,2> pigment { rgb x } }
box { <1.999,-1,-2><2,1,2> pigment { rgb z } }

superellipsoid
{ <1,.3> rotate x*90 scale <.25,.1,.25> translate <1, .9, 1.5>
  pigment { rgb 1 }
}
superellipsoid
{ <1,.3> scale <.25,.25,.2> translate <1, 0, 1.8>
  pigment { rgb 1 }
}
superellipsoid
{ <1,.3> scale <.25,.25,.2> translate <-1.2, 0, 1.8>
  pigment { rgb 1 }
}


-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/


Post a reply to this message

From: TonyB
Subject: Re: 'normals on' in radiosity is undocumented?
Date: 22 Dec 1999 10:39:29
Message: <3860f0b1@news.povray.org>
>  At least I didn't find it in the megapov documentation (except the
complete
>history section).


Here's what I read:

6. Miscellaneous changes & bug fixes

You can specify an adc_bailout for radiosity rays.  Use adc_bailout = 0.01 /
brightest_ambient_object for good results.
Fixed a bug relating to error_bound and samples stored during the first
radiosity pass.
Radiosity estimation is affected by surface normal.  <----

I took that to mean that it always used the normal now. I guess it doesn't.
Thanks for clearing this up.


Post a reply to this message

From: Nieminen Juha
Subject: Re: 'normals on' in radiosity is undocumented?
Date: 27 Dec 1999 05:52:05
Message: <386744d5@news.povray.org>
That's why I was whining.
  AFAIK currently the only place where we can see that normals do not affect
the radiosity by default and that it has to be turned on in the radiosity{}
block with "normal on" is in the complete history page:


December 9, 1999 - WinMegaPov

...

  10. by default, radiosity will not use perturbed sufrace normals.  Add
      'normals on' to the radiosity{} block in global_settings to enable
      this feature.  This feature also now is now significantly faster and
      better than before.

  And as I said, the correct syntax seems to be 'normal on'.


  Ps: My whining was only related to the documentation. The feature itself
is great.

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/


Post a reply to this message

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.