Hi list,
this is somehow a technical question, as I wonder how to define trees for a
urbanism model efficiently in radiance.
In CAD, I use a simple mesh and give it a material with "holes", so that I
get a somehow broken surface.
In radiance, I can define a tree looking like this by defining a geometry
(e.g. made of a hundred of surfaces) and let radiance render this. Or I use
the same way as in CAD, take a quite simple geometry and create the hole by
mapping with colorpict onto a quite simple transparent surface. In fact, I
don't have much experience with textures and patterns in radiance ("Rendering
with Radiance" is next to my keyboard, I wouldn't know what to do here
without this ;-).
What do you think that I should prefer? I ask as I need to know which way is
more efficient as I have got a very large model to place my treed in, and I
want to be still able to let radiance compute on my machine in reasonable
times.
In any way, I am using instances here.
Thank You, CU, Lars.
Hi,
When you use instances and still get large rendering times, you might try to
exclude the ambient calculation of you trees. This really saves time.
You can read about this in more detail in your book. The rendering option is -ae.
regards,
Iebele
"Lars O. Grobe" wrote:
···
Hi list,
this is somehow a technical question, as I wonder how to define trees for a
urbanism model efficiently in radiance.
In CAD, I use a simple mesh and give it a material with "holes", so that I
get a somehow broken surface.
In radiance, I can define a tree looking like this by defining a geometry
(e.g. made of a hundred of surfaces) and let radiance render this. Or I use
the same way as in CAD, take a quite simple geometry and create the hole by
mapping with colorpict onto a quite simple transparent surface. In fact, I
don't have much experience with textures and patterns in radiance ("Rendering
with Radiance" is next to my keyboard, I wouldn't know what to do here
without this ;-).
What do you think that I should prefer? I ask as I need to know which way is
more efficient as I have got a very large model to place my treed in, and I
want to be still able to let radiance compute on my machine in reasonable
times.
In any way, I am using instances here.
Thank You, CU, Lars.
_______________________________________________
Radiance-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general
Lars O. Grobe wrote:
In fact, I am currently working on the scene without rayfront. Is there a way
to make rayfront generate one octree per imported geometry (I used
rad-geometries, but the dxf-import would be ok, too)? If I try to oconv all
my rad-files in one run, I get the famous oconv overflow 
So I created one
oct per "object" (in fact per color) and have a instance file "model.rad"
where I put all my octs together.
There currently is no automatic way. You can place octrees in the
"parts" directory in the project, and include them with the marker
substitution feature. This is slightly clumsy, and primarily interesting
for those parts of your model that contribute a lot to the complexity,
but probably won't change later. The details of the procedure are
more suitable for a different mailing list, though.
Future versions of Rayfront may offer to do this automatically.
-schorsch
···
--
Georg Mischler -- simulations developer -- schorsch at schorsch.com
+schorsch.com+ -- lighting design tools -- http://www.schorsch.com/
So I created one