salf Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 I was looking on the tips and tutorials section on this forum about fakeosity, and i noticed theyre pretty old, (2002), and when someone asked "why use Fakeosity when radiosity is easier", the replies were along the lines of "not everydbody has VIZ 4 for or MAX 5 which are the progs. that let you do radiosity" Well, we're on 2004, i guess everybody must have a newer version of VIZ nad MAX than those, and of course more powerfull PCs, with that in mind, do you guys still use Fakeosity? I know i do, but mainly because im still learning, and a good radiosity solution takes me too much time, specially since in order to make it look good, id have to use the "regather indirect illumination" on VIZ, which will take me forever on a single PV 1.8, 1 GB RAM. In small exercises in my home PC, with only 1 room interiors, or for instance the one in the UNCHALLENGE FORUM, ive managed to get a nice radiosity solution, which makes me think thats a piece of cake, but on the Office Ive been working on a building like a month (a big building, actually 2 of them), and i just cant get a good solution with radiosity, either for exterior or interiors, so Ive been using the old fakeosty. How about you guys? [ February 19, 2004, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: salf ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelo Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 On a dual-xenon machine I've been using radiosity for almost everything. It processes solutions so quickly that I can even use it for "in-progress" stuff. However, when you have very large scenes with lots of detail and complex textures, that's a whole other story... With simple materials and small scenes, the natural look of the lighting makes all the difference in presentations (in my mind). VIZ 4.2 Dual 2.6 Xenons 2GB RAM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Cassil Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 I use "fakeosity" on most exteriors actually, even for finished renderings simply because it's so much faster and I've got a set up that looks pretty darn good that I can just reuse and tweak from one scene to the next. If I'm doing something that just has to look really photo realistic I'll use final render, not radiosity. I never use radiosity even for interiors. Having my models be flexible is of upmost importance because the projects I'm working on are always in design limbo and having to make sure that there are no intersecting surfaces pretty much blows any flexibility I might have had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tcorbett Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 If I have to do an animation, I use the fakiosity. The radiosity is nice for stills, but in animation, it's still just too much. Without the light regathering or raytracing, interiors just look too flat / blotchy, and with them I'm looking at far more time per frame. Besides, I've found it more effective to go artistic than realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iain Denby Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Fakiosity with me too. More and more of my jobs are being redesigned and tweaked as I do my job, so radiosity just isn't practical. Also I have so much stuff in my scenes it takes too long, and I have a twin 3ghz Xeon with 4 gig of ram! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
behemoth Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 I used to be a faker too. But more recently, I've use radiosity for almost all my renderings. Advances in computer speed means that this is an option even for quick projects. Sure it still takes a while to process scenes but with clever tweaking, I've manage to keep my rendering within 1.5 hours for hi-res. With really complicated scenes, I use distributed rendering to split up the load and all is still well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
behemoth Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 I failed to mentioned that I'm not even using an extreme machine. Just a P4 2.4GHz with 1 GB RAM! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3dp Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 i'm a fake too been faking it since '99 and still not been found out tried radiosity on a external animation a couple of weeks back but since i'm not on fibrechannel or running cluster servers the network traffic with 10-12 machines made it impractical (20 mins to load it up for a animation) externals i have 2 or 3 fake daylight systems i can drag and drop into external images that will produce rock solid results and match my style/mood of the time internals i use a hybrid these days of radisoity and fake and having learnt to do internal fakes the hard way it means you can be flexible and usually faster than waiting for a solution to process plus you have a product that does not look like everybody else who seems to be trying to emulate a photograph rember the guys in film/broadcast still do not tend to use g.i. in their work there is a lot to be said for learning to light the old school way is you are really seeking to be a individual in what seems to becoming a pretty mundane industry....i.e how real do you want to go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexg Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 A fake fans here,too! Been using it for both interior and exterior. We found fake is easier to control and more reliable to cope with those 'un-realistic additions' revisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now