Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
> > If you're talking about that light leaking though walls and the like, that's
> > actually the high error_bound samples, not the low ones.
>
>    Yes, I'm talking about these... but my experience says they appear at low
> error_bound values... ?!?!?

Huh - that sounds weird to me... I can't imagine why that would be.

Then again, thinking of it: Did you also set minimum_reuse low? Otherwise the
low error_bound might increase the probability of samples being placed very
close to edges, while the comparatively high minimum_reuse might allow for
"cross-talk" with the other side of the wall.

There might also be a connection to some other radiosity flaw I just found,
which explains how light will "leak" into dark corners (still doesn't explain
leaks at edges though). Unfortunately I still lack a good idea to fix it.


>    Now, if you had a fade_distance keyword on the reflection{} statement,
> which attenuates the reflection until it reaches 0 for objects beyond the
> specified distance, perhaps this would help getting less noisy materials
> with the existing blurring techniques (averaged layers with big normals,
> micronormals,...).
>
>    But as I said, my ideas turn to be nonsense often... and also it seems
> too simple to not have been figured out before.

Naaah - that doesn't sound like nonsense to me. It may be somewhat different
from reality, but it may *look* convincing after all.

Post a reply to this message