"Chris B" <nom### [at] nomailcom> wrote:

> Hi Sean,
>
> I only say this because I didn't see anyone else mention it, but I imagine
> you've checked that it's not just the old coincident surfaces chessnut
> (which catches me out with embarrassing regularity).
>
> Regards,
> Chris B.


Hi Chris,

No it is not coincident surfaces (although I too have suffered with these many
times).

I have rendered this scene before (for povcomp) and it rendered OK.
The only differences with this render are higher radiosity setting and higher
resolution. The render I submitted to povcomp was without isosurfaces turned on
but I have also rendered at 1600x1200 with isosurfaces. (this version can be
found here:
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3Cweb.42885c9a31d5b4de79fdcb760%40news.povray.org%3E/?ttop=266991
&toff=2000
).

For the 1600x1200 render I gathered radiosity stats at 800x600.

I was planning to do the final render at 5250x3500 and gather radiosity stats at
2625x1750.

Sean

Post a reply to this message