Am 23.07.2014 20:18, schrieb Nekar Xenos:

> What I would like to see with radiosity is a system that distinguishes
> between different materials. Smooth shiny materials should have a
> smaller cone of scattering than cement which should have a very wide
> angle of scattering.

Well... no, not really. In smooth shiny materials, the primary direction 
of the cone of scattering virtually always depends on the angle of the 
incoming light, approaching classic specular reflection as the object 
gets even smoother.

To model such cases, POV-Ray's radiosity approach is inherently 
unsuited, because the sample information needs to be very 
memory-efficient and thus quite limited - POV-Ray only stores a single 
weighted average of all the light coming in, so any information about 
the direction of the incoming light is lost entirely.

What really kicks ass for smooth shiny (but not perfectly polished) 
materials is blurred reflections; with a strong blur it can even give a 
subtle edge to comparatively dull materials


That doesn't mean your idea would be all nonsense though - see the stuff 
I happen to have just shown off in the "Brilliant Spheres" thread on 
povray.binary.images ;-)

(Actually it's not /that/ much of a coincidence: As a first approach at 
"replacing" radiosity I plan to actually just keep using it but not 
cache the results (plus make sure that the secondary rays shot are 
different each time); and as I want UberPOV to fully support non-default 
brilliance settings, I figured that I might just as well add that to 
POV-Ray's radiosity first... And then one thing led to another, and I 
found myself adding all those fancy finish improvements that had been on 
my agenda for so long...)

Post a reply to this message

> (Actually it's not /that/ much of a coincidence: As a first approach at
> "replacing" radiosity I plan to actually just keep using it but not
> cache the results (plus make sure that the secondary rays shot are
> different each time); and as I want UberPOV to fully support non-default
> brilliance settings, I figured that I might just as well add that to
> POV-Ray's radiosity first... And then one thing led to another, and I
> found myself adding all those fancy finish improvements that had been on
> my agenda for so long...)
>

And you did a marvelous job at that. Tank you very much :)

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 21:52:32 +0200, clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:


> (Actually it's not /that/ much of a coincidence: As a first approach at  
> "replacing" radiosity I plan to actually just keep using it but not  
> cache the results (plus make sure that the secondary rays shot are  
> different each time); and as I want UberPOV to fully support non-default  
> brilliance settings, I figured that I might just as well add that to  
> POV-Ray's radiosity first... And then one thing led to another, and I  
> found myself adding all those fancy finish improvements that had been on  
> my agenda for so long...)
>

You're our hero :)

-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

Am 24.07.2014 17:58, schrieb Nekar Xenos:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 21:52:32 +0200, clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>
>
>> (Actually it's not /that/ much of a coincidence: As a first approach
>> at "replacing" radiosity I plan to actually just keep using it but not
>> cache the results (plus make sure that the secondary rays shot are
>> different each time); and as I want UberPOV to fully support
>> non-default brilliance settings, I figured that I might just as well
>> add that to POV-Ray's radiosity first... And then one thing led to
>> another, and I found myself adding all those fancy finish improvements
>> that had been on my agenda for so long...)
>>
>
> You're our hero :)

Thanks. Sometimes I am. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 24.07.2014 17:58, schrieb Nekar Xenos:
> > On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 21:52:32 +0200, clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> (Actually it's not /that/ much of a coincidence: As a first approach
> >> at "replacing" radiosity I plan to actually just keep using it but not
> >> cache the results (plus make sure that the secondary rays shot are
> >> different each time); and as I want UberPOV to fully support
> >> non-default brilliance settings, I figured that I might just as well
> >> add that to POV-Ray's radiosity first... And then one thing led to
> >> another, and I found myself adding all those fancy finish improvements
> >> that had been on my agenda for so long...)
> >>
> >
> > You're our hero :)
>
> Thanks. Sometimes I am. ;-)

How difficult would it be to adapt this to GPU rendering via OpenCL or CUDA?

Post a reply to this message

Am 01.09.2014 18:16, schrieb jhu:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Am 24.07.2014 17:58, schrieb Nekar Xenos:
>>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 21:52:32 +0200, clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> (Actually it's not /that/ much of a coincidence: As a first approach
>>>> at "replacing" radiosity I plan to actually just keep using it but not
>>>> cache the results (plus make sure that the secondary rays shot are
>>>> different each time); and as I want UberPOV to fully support
>>>> non-default brilliance settings, I figured that I might just as well
>>>> add that to POV-Ray's radiosity first... And then one thing led to
>>>> another, and I found myself adding all those fancy finish improvements
>>>> that had been on my agenda for so long...)
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're our hero :)
>>
>> Thanks. Sometimes I am. ;-)
>
> How difficult would it be to adapt this to GPU rendering via OpenCL or CUDA?

Very. At least that's what I still suspect.

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 01.09.2014 18:16, schrieb jhu:
> > clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> >> Am 24.07.2014 17:58, schrieb Nekar Xenos:
> >>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 21:52:32 +0200, clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> (Actually it's not /that/ much of a coincidence: As a first approach
> >>>> at "replacing" radiosity I plan to actually just keep using it but not
> >>>> cache the results (plus make sure that the secondary rays shot are
> >>>> different each time); and as I want UberPOV to fully support
> >>>> non-default brilliance settings, I figured that I might just as well
> >>>> add that to POV-Ray's radiosity first... And then one thing led to
> >>>> another, and I found myself adding all those fancy finish improvements
> >>>> that had been on my agenda for so long...)
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> You're our hero :)
> >>
> >> Thanks. Sometimes I am. ;-)
> >
> > How difficult would it be to adapt this to GPU rendering via OpenCL or CUDA?
>
> Very. At least that's what I still suspect.

Oh well. Knight's Landing is just around the corner so OpenCL/CUDA might be
moot, but hopefully it's not too expensive.

Post a reply to this message