Print at Jan 22, 2022, 5:44:16 PM

Posted by mazoola at Jul 13, 2015, 12:36:43 PM
Re: Sweet Home 3D 5.0
Hans -

here are a couple scene files that demonstrate the rendering issues I mentioned a few days ago. With luck, it's something I'm doing wrong. wink

First is the file for the last image from my previous post, the one with the four lighting fixtures. (The scene file contains a model from 3DWarehouse, which appears to be permitted under the terms of their General Model License Agreement as of 18 March 2015.) It's a good thing you asked for the scene file, as I'd evidently forgotten exactly what it included.

Here, each fixture contains a sphere (with what I think is a 50% translucent white PNG mapped as a texture) representing a light bulb. Inside that sphere (concentric, but with a smaller radius) is a low-output (2%) light source whose sole purpose is to illuminate the 'bulb.' Outside the sphere (concentric, larger radius) is another light source that lights the scene itself. The two fixtures to the left in the image below have a 3" sphere for the bulb, lit from within by a 2.75" white light source at 2%, and surrounded by a 3.125" white light source at 15%. I have disabled the internal light source for the second fixture from the left to show how the 'bulb' disappears.

The two fixtures on the right are the same as those on the left, except they have a slightly larger sphere (3.375") surrounding the outer light source. This additional sphere has a white PNG with a gradient transparency ranging from 15% to 50% mapped to it; the sphere is aligned so its most opaque portion lies between the light source and the wall at the back of the scene. Most likely, I could eliminate the internal 'bulb' sphere and light source, downsize the gradient, and let the gradient serve as my bulb -- but the render artifact makes that a moot point.

...except that, here, it doesn't: There doesn't seem to be a visible artifact in this render using Beta 15.

...except that it reappears when rendered at other sizes. For instance, here's the same image, rendered using the same settings -- only generated at a width of 300 pixels rather than 400.

I evidently didn't save the scene file for the other test from my previous post, so I had to slap one together. I think it's essentially the same as the original.

However, while running a few test renders with it, I discovered something interesting. The following are all renders of the same scene; the only difference is the aspect ratio as selected by the 'apply proportions' drop-down. All were rendered at 400 pixels width, with proportions of, left to right, '3D view,' '4/3,' '16/9,' and 'Square.'