[Radiance-general] Trees... and defining them in radiance

[atelier iebele abel]

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
> Radiance-general@radiance-online.org
> http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general