hmm ... all renderer uses techniques which could be called "stolen".
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
is this a possibility in the future Vlado ?
Collapse
X
-
-
V-Ray's sky is based on this paper (which, in turn, is based on a number of other papers):
http://www.cs.utah.edu/vissim/papers/sunsky/
I believe both Maxwell and finalRender are using the same approach. I'm almost sure for Maxwell, since many of the parameters (turbidity, ozone etc) coincide with those in the paper; for finalRender, I can only guess by the images, but they look close enough.
Further on, the "physical sky" idea goes back well before Maxwell appeared - for example, Radiance has a sort of a daylight system.
Best regards,
VladoI only act like I know everything, Rogers.
Comment
-
well, I don't care about copyrights...
the main thing is that vray has a sun and sky system!!! yeahhh
great news, vlado your the best! can't wait to test this.
best regards
themaxxerPixelschmiede GmbH
www.pixelschmiede.ch
Comment
-
Vlado, I cant wait to test this out!
Have almost been considering making the shift to maxwell, but with this being implimented for vray i wont waste my time!
Comment
-
Marko Dabrovic had a wonderfull collection of usefull links about rendertheory: http://www.rna.hr/links-sky.htm
I know this linkpage since 1998 and i guess it's only the top of an eisberg.
anyway, vlado what i ever wanted to ask you :
How much did the Radiance technology influenced the first betaversions of vray? .. i always wonder how similar vray performed the i-maps.
Comment
-
and dont forget to go with vray sky and vray sun is vray lensflare hehehe
---------------------------------------------------
MSN addresses are not for newbies or warez users to contact the pros and bug them with
stupid questions the forum can answer.
Comment
-
Dreamscape had a sky/atmospherics system built in way before maxwell
...and it works with vray too.... just that it's a bit slow in vray, so it's not ideal... I guess it's just not optimised for vray rendering... (I used it in the city render I posted a while back)
Comment
-
i want this badly :PMarc Lorenz
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
www.marclorenz.com
www.facebook.com/marclorenzvisualization
Comment
-
Physical Sky ? The ancient Terragen still rules them all
IMO there is no way to adjust a sky easier than with Terragen.
And... you can output HDR´s (no assembly necessary)wich than can be used with Vray. It produces very high dynamic images with values up to 10000
Can´t wait to test them with the vray dome light
www.planetside.co.uk for people who don´t know it
Comment
-
Originally posted by Dschagaanyway, vlado what i ever wanted to ask you :
How much did the Radiance technology influenced the first betaversions of vray? .. i always wonder how similar vray performed the i-maps.
(*) Both use 3d point clouds to store irradiance information.
(*) However, the original method described by Ward uses octal trees to store the information, whereas V-Ray uses a kd-tree.
(*) V-Ray makes use of the rotation gradient information (for things like bump-mapping and smoothed normals), but does not compute the translational gradient - since this requires jittered hemispheric sampling, and V-Ray uses QMC sampling instead.
(*) The original method uses simple blending of the samples, whereas V-Ray uses least squares fit interpolation by default. To a large extent, this compensates the lack of translational gradient in V-Ray.
(*) The criteria for deciding whether new samples must be made are completely different - the original method uses the mean distance to the objects and (possibly) the value of the translational gradient. V-Ray uses a more complicated method by combining three criterions (the color, normal and distance thresholds, as well as projection on the screen).
(*) The original method allows irradiance caching for secondary bounces as well. While this works in simple cases, for more complicated scenarios and many light bounces this drastically increases memory usage and render times (since each bounce requires a completely new irradiance cache). Instead, V-Ray uses either direct calculation of secondary bounces (QMC GI), or some other approximation method (photon map or light cache).
There are other differences as well, but these are the ones that come to my mind immediately.
Best regards,
VladoI only act like I know everything, Rogers.
Comment
-
Here are some images from the sun/sky system so far:
Higher-res images here: http://www.spot3d.com/vray/images/stuff/daylight/
Best regards,
VladoI only act like I know everything, Rogers.
Comment
-
-
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
thats all i gotta say.
---------------------------------------------------
MSN addresses are not for newbies or warez users to contact the pros and bug them with
stupid questions the forum can answer.
Comment
Comment