Yes, that`s what I meant. Now I understand the problem. I just thought it
would save some calculation of the interreflections between slats, but
surely that`s not significant.
Thank you for the clarification.
Santiago
···
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
Greg Ward
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2004 4:16 AM
To: Radiance general discussion
Subject: Re: [Radiance-general] Approximating the gross daylight
flux throughvenetian blinds.I haven't read this paper -- thanks for pointing it out. I know that
Marilyne Anderson is continuing her measurement work now that she's at
MIT.Regarding your suggestion with the BRTDfunc, if I understand you
correctly, you are suggesting that it might be possible to simulate the
apprearance of slats in the model. I agree, but I think that might
defeat the purpose of using such a model, as we would be reintroducing
irregularities in the light coming through that would then require
heavier sampling to resolve. That is the current problem with venetian
blind models -- it's not that Radiance can't handle the complex
geometry, quite the contrary. It is simply that the slats themselves
cause a large variance in the penetrating radiation, to the point where
many ray samples are needed to resolve the agregate (i.e., integrated)
behavior.I hope I didn't misunderstand what you were saying.
-Greg
_______________________________________________
Radiance-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general