EnigmA Amiga Run 1997 July/EnigmA AMIGA RUN 20 (1997)(G.R. Edizioni)(IT)[!][issue 1997-07 & 08][EAR-CD IV].iso/lightwave/lwmlist/95.lightwave-10/001668_owner-lightwav…mail.webcom.com_Tue Oct 31 01:00:50 1995.msg

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

Received: by mail.webcom.com
    (1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA290410050; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 01:00:50 -0800
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from minnie.risd.edu ([192.190.22.2]) by mail.webcom.com with SMTP
    (1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA290300040; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 01:00:41 -0800
Received: by minnie.risd.edu; id AA27278; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 03:57:09 -0500
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 03:57:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Joe Angell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Refraction?
To: Chris Purdie <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
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



> Does the Refractive Index value entered itself have any effect on
> rendering times? I mean, I know it takes longer then no refraction, but
> does a setting of 1.5 render faster then a setting of 2.0? Or even 1.1
> render faster then 1.2? Any great amount?

I think it says so in the manual somewhere -- the higher the index of
refraction (IOR), the longer the render will take.  I bet it's beacuse with
a > IOR, LW has to compute more parts of the scene that could be
refracted through it, since it bens more light.  Just a guess, though...

-- Joe
--
Joe Angell <[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]