Indigo 1.1.18

CTZn · Post by **CTZn** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 6:13 am

Great work with bidir Ono, weighted !

suvakas · Post by **suvakas** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 7:07 am

CTZn wrote:Great work with bidir Ono, weighted !

What exactly is it ?

CTZn · Post by **CTZn** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 7:36 am

Well I'm using bidir for the dichroic glass tests and it does the job just fine... I assume the changes are positives since these tests are demanding, they involve complex materials... did I say something wrong, or is it because I said something

?

pixie · Post by **pixie** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 7:37 am

I for once doesn't know exactly what weighted bidir meant

CTZn · Post by **CTZn** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 7:45 am

Me neither, but I know it's better if a bug using bidir and complex specular materials was squashed. I won't claim things that I have not tested but right now it's doing great, I was not used to be that confident in bidir's performances with sss.

I would like to know more as well, meanwhile I'm happy with the few results.

suvakas · Post by **suvakas** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 7:52 am

I was asking, what exactly is this "incorrect weighting" that got fixed.

Borgleader · Post by **Borgleader** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 9:35 am

suvakas wrote:I was asking, what exactly is this "incorrect weighting" that got fixed.

So far ive been under the impression it was this:
http://www.indigorenderer.com/joomla/fo ... ight=bidir

filippo · Post by **filippo** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 11:21 pm

wonderfull work...

SzLaszlo · Post by **SzLaszlo** » Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:04 am

"Please test and let me know if you find any bugs!"

I can't find bugs , and stable

:

http://laszlo-blender.extra.hu/W3D_Koro ... Render.jpg

( 182 h. - hp550 notebook - celeron cpu

)

Camox · Post by **Camox** » Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:29 am

182 h wow that`s a long time !

btw: nice render ,funny how there because all hang around.

SATtva_ · Post by **SATtva_** » Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:43 pm

Gush, I'm terrified. O_o I've just tested Windows x86 build and Linux x86-64 build of Indigo 1.1.18. Both were ran on amd64 Linux box (Win32 version under Wine). Here're pure numbers:

Linux:

Done 4760000.00000 samples (7.43750 samples per pixel)
15834.84234 samples / second (63.15188 micro-seconds / sample)

Win32:

Done 5960000.00000 samples (9.31250 samples per pixel)
19801.94631 samples / second (50.50009 micro-seconds / sample)

That's roughly 25% difference!

What disturbs me is the beginning of log in windows version:

Indigo Renderer v1.1.18, Windows 32-bit Release build.
SSE present.
SSE2 present.
SSE3 present.
Using base Indigo directory path ''.
Scene file path: 'default.igs'

While in the Linux version it's just

Indigo Renderer v1.1.18, Linux 64-bit Release build.
Using base Indigo directory path '.'.
Scene file path: 'default.igs'

Does SSE optimizations applied at all?

Kram1032 · Post by **Kram1032** » Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:36 pm

well... noise-wise, they look pretty mutch equal

The splotched are placed differently but else---^^

clive_023 · Post by **clive_023** » Sun Mar 29, 2009 2:20 am

what is the skindigo version that works with this indigo 1.1.18?

Borgleader · Post by **Borgleader** » Sun Mar 29, 2009 3:32 am

I'm pretty darn sure the 1.1.16 version does.

Antagonist · Post by **Antagonist** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:55 am

wonderfull work, love it
the only problem i have is in the setting albedo get an error message but I think thats my fault,

someone can tell me if is there a way to use caustics

congratulations again very nice work.

Indigo 1.1.18

Linux build vs. Windows build

Who is online