Timeline for Using Monte carlo on Rayleigh scattering
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 16, 2021 at 20:01 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Nov 16, 2020 at 20:00 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Oct 17, 2020 at 19:40 | answer | added | Kara | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 6, 2018 at 3:56 | comment | added | PaulHK | Yes 16x8 samples/pix is heavy, you can reduce this a little and get away with good results (usually lower samples makes the atmosphere shadow area more coarse). You could also look into rendering the atmosphere at a lower resolution and upscale | |
| Mar 6, 2018 at 2:08 | comment | added | PaulHK | But stepping by rand.NextDouble() in numLightSamples steps means you don't end up at isectSun.Dist as the original code does, this i think is the cause of your problem. | |
| Mar 5, 2018 at 12:16 | comment | added | ali | @PaulHK, well even with one sample ppx you still need 16 x 8 samples for marching algorithm. You may think this isn't costly but if you do, then you may use Monte Carlo method instead of marching the along the ray in steps. | |
| Mar 5, 2018 at 8:55 | comment | added | PaulHK | I've implemented this algorithm before and also found it unnecessary to generate multiple rays for each 'pixel'. A single ray, which raymarches from the view direction, and for each of those steps marches towards the light was enough to get high quality results. Have you tried just one call to ComputeIncidentLight per pixel? (Also see my previous post, you have modified the sample->light ray march in a way that may have broken it) | |
| Mar 5, 2018 at 8:06 | comment | added | PaulHK | I would be suspicious of this line> Vector samplePositionLight = samplePosition + sunDirection * (tCurrentLight + segmentLengthLight * rand.NextDouble()); >> This should walk the sample-to-light in even steps, why is it doing a random length walk ? | |
| S Mar 4, 2018 at 19:56 | history | suggested | user7220 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Corrected indents..
|
| Mar 4, 2018 at 11:34 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Mar 4, 2018 at 19:56 | |||||
| S Sep 6, 2017 at 7:26 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| S Sep 6, 2017 at 7:26 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| Sep 1, 2017 at 7:54 | history | edited | ali | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 11 characters in body
|
| Sep 1, 2017 at 0:29 | comment | added | Julien Guertault | The comment was directed toward people willing to propose answers. But thanks, it makes the question more interesting too. :) | |
| Aug 31, 2017 at 13:10 | history | edited | ali | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1103 characters in body
|
| S Aug 29, 2017 at 5:28 | history | bounty started | Julien Guertault | ||
| S Aug 29, 2017 at 5:28 | history | notice added | Julien Guertault | Draw attention | |
| Aug 26, 2017 at 9:21 | comment | added | ali | Thanks for your comment. Still not working and I do not understand why. I sample a point uniformly along the ray, instead of dividing it to segment, and the pdf is simply 1/dist. But for some reason it doesn't converge to same result. | |
| Aug 23, 2017 at 7:22 | comment | added | Julien Guertault | Without reading the code and just from the picture, my intuition would be to double check the integration. It looks like too much light is absorbed along the ray. I would first check that in the first implementation the color stays the same when changing the number of steps (just to make sure it's a good reference image), then I would double check the absorption equation used in the MT implementation. | |
| Aug 22, 2017 at 18:16 | history | edited | ali | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 80 characters in body
|
| Aug 22, 2017 at 11:09 | history | edited | ali | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 45 characters in body
|
| Aug 22, 2017 at 8:27 | history | edited | ali | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Aug 22, 2017 at 8:21 | history | edited | ali | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4117 characters in body
|
| Aug 22, 2017 at 7:31 | history | asked | ali | CC BY-SA 3.0 |