"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?

> (c) and (d) aren't too much apart - but for some reasons I don't yet understand,
> (d) renders a lot faster (factor 3!!!), so it looks like I did *something*
> right.

That's great!

> This also shows that 3.6.1 radiosity is far from perfect

Why?  And, hey, while you're messing around with it, how about getting radiosity
"count" limit way up? ;)

Post a reply to this message