its far from pointless. Personally I’d been thinking of doing the exact same thing. Why? So I could get a better and more precise understanding of how vray’s sun and sky works. I like to know how things happen and why, its just my nature. Does it mean Ill be working to make all my future renderings completely photoreal? Far from it.
I don’t care to be a physicist, I just want to understand my tools better. Think of it like a painter experimenting with how his pigments look in different lighting setups, and mixing different pigments so that he better understands color.
Rerender, you beat me to it. Yes, I realized that there is a building off to the right, and though it is quite a ways off, obviously has some influence. I’ve built that into the model rendered below.
I also realized that I was making a big mistake. I didn’t account for the sun being blocked by the clouds so left the intensity multiplier at 1. I figure that the clouds are blocking, maybe, half the light so dropped that down to .5. I also wanted to give Vray Sky one more shot. Since the sunlight was cut in half, I knew I had to give the sky more kick. Vlado mentioned in another post about putting the Vray Sky in an output map. Since I don’t know too much about it, I just started moving sliders and adjusting numbers and fell upon a combination that worked very well. I really have no idea what I did so have posted the output map so people could explain to me what I did. Whatever the case, I am getting closer to matching reality. What’s amazing is that the camera settings and the vray camera settings are identical. To me, that was pretty cool.
