[quote name='Frenetic Pony' timestamp='1348361865' post='4982777']
Saw that Radiance Hints paper a while ago, and since I've yet to see it used I'm assuming there's something wrong with it in practice. Specifically I'd worry about secondary occlusion, bounce lighting is a lot higher frequency than is usually given credit; and besides, realtime reflections is just fantastic to have (even if it is going to look odd on truly reflective surfaces).
That being said, I'd love to hear I'm wrong. If anyone has experience actually implementing radiance hints and the results it gives I'd love to know your opinion.
Sadly, Radiance Hints is rarely known technique. I found only one video of its implementation.
[media]
[/media]
What do you mean by "bounce lighting is a lot higher frequency than is usually given credit" ?
It's low frequency.
[quote name='MrOMGWTF' timestamp='1347289006' post='4978594']
If you're going for only diffuse indirect lighting, there is nice and fast method here:
http://graphics.cs.a...ntsPreprint.pdf
If you want a fast and proven technique for real-time diffuse indirect lighting you should look into light propagation volumes as proposed by Kaplanyan and Dachsbacher
http://www6.incrysis...ion_Volumes.pdf
I wouldn't call it easy to implement, but it's still a lot easier than the cone tracing technique
[/quote]
LPV doesn't support occlusion, that's its con.
At least it's pretty fast method to approximate GI.
The funniest actually thing, is this:
1. I was playing around with cryengine 3.
2. I've loaded the forest map.
3. I was switching the GI check box, and there was NO difference in image realism.
GI isn't as this important in games? Well, maybe because it was a forest. A scene in a building would need GI to be realistic, I think?
[/quote]
Wow, that's more impressive than I'd given it credit. I suppose thin geometry is going to cause light bleeding, but then again that's a problem with voxel cone tracing as well.
Regardless, yes, bounce lighting is a lot higher frequency than is acknowledged generally. First off, it's obviously responsible for reflections, which are obviously "high frequency". Secondly, if you look around any average house with a lot of windows you're certainly going to see a number of fairly high frequency shadows from indirect light. It's just that it's not as obvious and high frequency as direct light from a source, and so it's easier to approximate with something smooth and low frequency.
Also, as stated occlusion is supported in LPV. Not that it's perfect, which is the real challenge of any GI method. Another weakness to note (as far as I know) is that it doesn't deal well with distances. Propagation just isn't a good way to get light bouncing from that mountain on one side of your map to the mountain on the other side, even though it really should. An extreme example you'd probably be able to ignore well enough I know, but you still do run into problems with it.
