[Radiance-general] Re: Rtcontrib-BSDF and DAYSIM-pmap: where are we heading?

[Greg Ward]

Sounds like a great idea, John.  I see it as a (very) friendly  
competition, where two groups are trying to solve a similar set of  
problems with slightly different approaches.  I can probably come up  
with a set of goals and known limitations for the rtcontrib approach  
as a starting point.  The photon map has been around long enough and  
has been used by a sufficient number of people that I hope we can  
solicit reviews from users as well as the creators (Roland and Jan).

Cheers,
-Greg

> From: John Mardaljevic <jm at dmu.ac.uk>
> Date: May 10, 2010 7:11:08 AM PDT
>
> Fellows,
>
> The intention here is to try to envisage what the software landscape  
> might be like in five / ten years time, at least for Radiance users  
> doing climate-based (i.e. annual) daylight modelling, perhaps  
> including complex glazing systems.
>
> Jan Wienold mentioned a while back that a photon-mapping Radiance  
> add-on (I assume pmap) is in the works, and that it would be  
> integrated with DAYSIM for annual simulations. Greg Ward has  
> recently demonstrated the rtcontrib-BSDF approach that seems to  
> offer similar functionality.
>
> So, are we being presented with a fork in the road ahead?  If so,  
> how will we decide which path to take?  Is now perhaps the right  
> time to consider working-up a checklist of capabilities/strengths/ 
> weaknesses for the two approaches?
>
> I don't believe that we are too far away from seeing metrics founded  
> on climate-based daylight modelling appearing in guidelines such as  
> LEED etc.  In which case, there could be something of a scramble as  
> potentially many, many new Radiance users join what is still a  
> fairly small bunch of 'enthusiasts' doing annual simulations.  It  
> think it would be useful to get this discussion on the go sooner  
> rather than later.
>
> Best,
>
> -John