[Radiance-general] warning - outgoing BSDF direction 142 collects 107.4% of light

[Gregory J. Ward]

Hi David,

I don't get the warning using your XML file.  I suspect there is something amiss with dctimestepcpu, which I don't know anything about.  Maybe it was derived from earlier code that summed up the BSDF improperly?

Cheers,
-Greg

> From: David Appelfeld <d.appelfeld at gmail.com>
> Date: May 23, 2011 9:50:43 AM PDT
> 
> Hi Greg 
> 
> here is the file. This matrix is only the difference compare to other calculations. 
> 
> I really appreciate your help with my problems with Radiance. 
> 
> Thank you
> David
> 
> On 23 May 2011 09:35, Greg Ward <gregoryjward at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> I don't really know the source of this warning.  Concentration of light shouldn't affect genBSDF, as it measures everything at infinity.  Why don't you e-mail me your problem XML file in an off-list message, and I'll see if I can spot anything.
> 
> -Greg
> 
> > From: David Appelfeld <d.appelfeld at gmail.com>
> > Date: May 23, 2011 8:53:33 AM PDT
> >
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > Yes, you understand my email correctly.
> > I have just find that the material is probably not only the reason. I have the window split into parts parts and only BSDF for bottom part (down) generate this warning. Here is the command for both parts of window, and only difference is the bounding box, which I assume is correct.
> >
> > ### this one produce the warning
> > genBSDF -c 1000 -n 8 -r @BSDFparameters.opt +forward -backward -geom -dim 0 1.98 0 1.13 -0.01 0 \
> > geometry/materialNew.mat geometry/30_geometry.rad > results/BSDFdown_30_new.xml
> >
> > genBSDF -c 1000 -n 8 -r @BSDFparameters.opt +forward -backward -geom -dim 0 1.98 1.13 2.26 -0.01 0 \
> > geometry/materialNew.mat geometry/30_geometry.rad > results/BSDFup_30_new.xml
> >
> >
> >
> > I am actually using dctimestepcpu instead of dctimestep because it is much faster, but I guess it is updated too.
> >
> > I have got this message before but with dctimestep and not dctimestepcpu. I fixed that in that time but I am not sure what was wrong, I guess it was something with wrong geometry and there were many more dirrection which collected higher %.
> >
> > My question could be also understand as: Would this error also appear when there is light concentration in one spot after it is reflected?
> >
> > Thank you
> > David
> >
> >
> > On 23 May 2011 08:32, Greg Ward <gregoryjward at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi David,
> >
> > If I understand your e-mail correctly, you are seeing this error using the NEW material, not the OLD one.
> >
> > I cannot reproduce your error.  I assume from your earlier e-mails that you are using the latest HEAD of Radiance.  You should make sure that everything is up-to-date and try it again.  In particular, we fixed some problems last December in the normalization of results.  The dctimestep program has also been improved and corrected.
> >
> > -Greg
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.radiance-online.org/pipermail/radiance-general/attachments/20110523/8d723f46/attachment.html>