[Radiance-general] Progress Report

[alex summerfield]

> -- OK, seconds before I was to press send, Carsten Bauer sent me an
> email.  He's been doing some testing of his own with this model, with
> much better results.  It seems that if we set -lw to zero, and not a
> really-really low number, you get results that match the math.  The
> other big difference between his process and mine is that he's getting
> his values from a rendering (rpict) and I'm just rtracing values.  So
> perhaps there's the missing link(s).

Hi Rob 

Great - Carsten's results agrees with the fact that the swings you were
getting from that amplified illuminance suggestion pointed to something in
the settings being at least part of the problem.

The role of rpict makes sense too - with renderings every pixel (if -ps 1)
is equivalent to an rtrace data point - (eg a 100x100 image rather than
relying on 10x10 =100 pts of measurement points) all helping to generate a
more 'well behaved' ambient file to describe the indirect lighting
distribution. 

That's why (in answer to an earlier email) reusing the ambient file
generated from an 'overture' image will still benefit your quantitative
simulation (rather than starting from scratch with a relatively few
measurement points).

But usually not done because ab setting is normally different between
renderings and quantitative simulation.

cheers
alex

*******************************************************
A. J. Summerfield                 alex@arch.usyd.edu.au
Faculty of Architecture, University of Sydney
*******************************************************
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside a dog, it's too dark to read.       Groucho Marx
*******************************************************