Light ROM 4/Light ROM 4 - Disc 1.iso/text/maillist/1995/1095.doc/001694_owner-lightwav…mail.webcom.com_Tue Oct 31 11:16:12 1995.msg

Internet Message Format | 1995-11-07 | 2KB

Received: by mail.webcom.com
    (1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA107426972; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 11:16:12 -0800
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from keeper.albany.net by mail.webcom.com with ESMTP
    (1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA107346965; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 11:16:05 -0800
Received: from magik.albany.net ([e-mail] [204.180.208.49]) by keeper.albany.net (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id OAA11548 for <[e-mail]>; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 14:22:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: by magik.albany.net (8.7.1) id OAA24844; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 14:11:35 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 14:11:34 -0500 (EST)
From: David Warner <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Refraction?
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


Ernie Wright <[e-mail]> asks:
> > > Does the Refractive Index value entered itself have any effect on
> > > rendering times?
> >
> > Yes, but not significantly.
>
> How come?

Raising any of LW's surface values will result in higher render times...
an object with a reflectivity of 50% will render faster then an object
with a reflectivity of 100%...this is pretty much true for all of the
surface values, but we're not talking about very big numbers here.

You could probably shave a couple of seconds off of each frame if you
went through your surfaces and lowered all of your values by 5% or 10%...
depending on how complex a scene is or how many frames you have to
render, this could make a big difference in over all render times.
It would make an even bigger difference when ray-tracing, of course.


                                     -David Warner


--
David Warner <[e-mail]> sent this message.
To Post a Message           : [e-mail]
Un/Subscription Requests To : [e-mail]
(DIGEST)                 or : [e-mail]
Administrative Items To     : [e-mail]