[Radiance-general] Trees -- Time cost of different tree modelling approaches

[Jack de Valpine]

Hi Tim,

Short answer is that I have not calculated the run time differences for 
the scenarios you suggest (at least not in recent memory). However I 
have done lots of visualizations with LOTS of trees (using instanced 
trees).  If you have lots of trees you probably need to use instances to 
help manage scene memory. If on the other hand you are only trying to 
account for a few trees then perhaps you can get away with a relatively 
"flat" octree formation (eg using straight geometry not instancing 
frozen octrees).

Possibly pulling together this thread and your questions on trans 
materials, leaves on trees and annual simulations, I would offer a few 
thoughts though. I would suggest that having a trans material applied on 
your leaves could increase your simulation time pretty significantly 
depending on your run parameters, just think of all those trans 
calculations that are occurring as a ray is traced from one trans to 
another to another.... I would also suggest that for an annual (hourly) 
simulation this level of simulation detail is probably not that critical...

Others I am sure will offer their (greater) wisdom.

Regards,

-Jack de Valpine

On 12/6/2011 6:25 PM, Tim Perry wrote:
> Has anyone ever quantified the run-time differences between the following?
> 1) Creating a tree similar the pine tree Greg provides with the Radiance distribution and insert the octree into the scene multiple times.
> 2) Creating a tree similar to the Pine tree Greg provides, but insert the actual .rad definition into the scene multiple times before running oconv.
> 3) Creating a tree outline in 2-d and rotating it 90 degrees about the z-axis to get some tree-like effects.
>
> Has anyone ever quantified how large the effect would be for an annual simulation to use the first or second option as compared to the third option?
>
> Thanks for your time,
> Tim
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Greg Ward<gregoryjward at gmail.com>
> To: Tim Perry<perry2of5 at yahoo.com>; Radiance general discussion<radiance-general at radiance-online.org>
> Sent: Monday, December 5, 2011 5:48 PM
> Subject: Re: [Radiance-general] Trees
>
>
> Hi Tim,
>
> You can do it with trans, and it will work with the 3-phase method.  Here are some useful posts:
>
> [Radiance-general] trans mat
>
> [Radiance-general] trans dashboard widget
>
> Hope this is enough to get you started!
>
> -Greg
>
> From: Tim Perry<perry2of5 at yahoo.com>
>> Date: December 5, 2011 5:34:27 PM PST
>> I would like to model trees outside buildings in my Radiance runs. I would like to model them transmitting about 20% of light and make the canopy 40% reflective.
>>      * Can I do this by using a translucent material? 
>>      * If so, can you point me to a tutorial?
>>      * Will this be compatible with the 3-phase method of daylighting analysis? (I.e., daylight coefficient method with the 3-phase method and a BSDF for the window).
>>
>> Thanks for any help,
>> Tim
> _______________________________________________
> Radiance-general mailing list
> Radiance-general at radiance-online.org
> http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general