I do never like fake shadows as fake caustics because it looks BAD caustics rendered = no "real-life" and I deserve much "real-life". loolElvissuperstar007 wrote:ice in the material necessary to tick the fake shadows
nuno1980 wrote:I do never like fake shadows as fake caustics because it looks BAD caustics rendered = no "real-life" and I deserve much "real-life". loolElvissuperstar007 wrote:ice in the material necessary to tick the fake shadows
But I wait new kernel as maybe progressive photon mapping (PPM) for much shorter time render than PMC.
yeah. But "lol" - looool, lolol or lloll...djart wrote:Whats lool? "Laughing out out loud"...
bepeg4d wrote:Good tests nuno, have you tried by rendering at double or quad for few samples and then down scaling at the original resolution?
My test is good!!gabrielefx wrote:teapot test is not ok,
when you involve many objects in interior spaces you will need 8 Titan X to get a clean image.
Fox exteriors PMC is useless, pt is a lot faster especially if you set GI clamp to 1. Also using PT with GI set to 1 you have to use caustic blur if you have metallic or very reflective objects in the scene.
For interiors you can use pmc but you need 8 fast gpus, it's better to use pt, Octane will generate sharper images, well defined texture and less noise in dark areas.
I never used glossy and specular samples at high values except you have several glass layers, I always use 8-16, rarely 24.
Caustics are useful only if you create a pool.
Don't use dispersion because it generates noise.
B = (n_d - 1)/V_d*((0.48613^2*0.65627^2)/(0.65627^2 - 0.48613^2))
F and C = F and C wavelengthes - If wavelength = 589.3 nm then should use F = 486.13 nm and C = 656.27 nm
n_d_dispersed = n_d_original - 10/3*B
B -> dispersion coefficient
n_d -> refractive index
V_d -> abbe number
n_d_dispersed - refractive index dispersed if the dispersion is enabled, for Octane Render software only
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests