Hi Greg, Thanks for your thoughts. We did clean out the old ambient files. In our ADF script, mkillum is run with -n 80 (our servers have between 64 and 88 virtual processors)
With -aa 0, the results are on average 32% lower, compared to the 16% reduction I mentioned before. I was re-running different options over the last few days to get to the bottom of this. Re-running an identical copy of the folder and with the same settings that allowed me to reproduce the results from Sep (with the old binaries) does now give the same 16% reduction as all other combinations of options. I'm rather puzzled. It seems as if using the old binaries but otherwise identical settings does not reliably give me the old results. I'm hoping that this is not dependent on the server load, which will be nearly impossible to track down. In the latest runs, loading the server to roughly 100% give the same results (16% red.) as loading it to 400%, i.e. running the same assessment in four different, identical directories. I'll run a few more tests next week, and will report back. Have a lovely weekend Axel On 4 April 2018 at 00:51, Gregory J. Ward <gregoryjw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Axel, > > The change you mention didn't happen between the two HEAD snapshots you > listed. These are the changes in that range: > > Revision 2.77 - (view) (download) (annotate) - [select for diffs] > Fri Apr 21 16:07:29 2017 UTC (11 months, 1 week ago) by greg > Branch: MAIN > CVS Tags: rad5R1 > Changes since 2.76: +9 -5 lines > Diff to previous 2.76 > Fixed issue where ambient super-samples were being left off deep ray trees > > > Revision 2.76 - (view) (download) (annotate) - [select for diffs] > Thu Jan 26 16:46:58 2017 UTC (14 months ago) by greg > Branch: MAIN > Changes since 2.75: +3 -3 lines > Diff to previous 2.75 > Fixed bug in scenes with zero octree size > > > Revision 2.75 - (view) (download) (annotate) - [select for diffs] > Sat Oct 15 14:54:39 2016 UTC (17 months, 2 weeks ago) by greg > Branch: MAIN > Changes since 2.74: +4 -4 lines > Diff to previous 2.74 > Increased minimum sampling spacing slightly -- rejection still less than 1% > > > Revision 2.74 - (view) (download) (annotate) - [select for diffs] > Fri Oct 14 19:15:34 2016 UTC (17 months, 2 weeks ago) by greg > Branch: MAIN > Changes since 2.73: +10 -6 lines > Diff to previous 2.73 > Tweaked sample collision test to use 1/10th of ambient division size > > > Revision 2.73 - (view) (download) (annotate) - [select for diffs] > Fri Oct 14 00:54:21 2016 UTC (17 months, 2 weeks ago) by greg > Branch: MAIN > Changes since 2.72: +40 -9 lines > Diff to previous 2.72 > Fixed regression in genBSDF affecting Klems normalization > > Of these, the 2.73 corrected bias in the calculation that could conceivably > affect the results one way or another. > > I am puzzled why using or not using the ambient file makes a difference. I > assume you are not re-using an old ambient file for your new runs. How many > processes are you running (mkillum -n setting)? > > Can you check your calculation by disabling caching altogether by setting > -aa 0 in mkillum? This might offer an indication of what's going on. I > would be happy to try this as well if you want to send me your model. > > Cheers, > -Greg > > From: Axel Jacobs <jacobs.a...@gmail.com> > Date: April 3, 2018 9:16:42 AM PDT > > Dear devs, > > we recently had to re-run a large project that we initially worked in > in Sep 2017. We calculated daylight factors in rooms that are rather > highly obstructed. I believe the assessment back in Sep 2017 was > carried with HEAD-20160926. The recent re-run was probably with > HEAD-20171201. > > For our daylight factor simulations, with use mkillum with -ab 3. > Apparently, this wasn't quite good enough in this case due to the > highly obstructed nature of the site. -ab should have been increased > back then, but unfortunately wasn't. We also use an external ambient > file. > > Either way, we are not able to replicate the Sep 2017 results with the > new binaries and ambient file enabled. The new results (new binaries, > with -af) are up to 40% lower than the old ones. > > With the old binaries without an ambient file, we get the same results > that we get with the new binaries (with and without) an ambient file. > > In other words: with the old binaries, the results are different > depending on whether the ambient file is anabled or not. > > In the Release Notes > (https://radiance-online.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/ray/doc/notes/ReleaseNotes?view=markup) > on line 2086, I noticed this entry under 'Compatibility Change' for > version 5.1, which was released 8/17/2017: > > "Enabled ambient cache value corral for all levels, not just final > two. This may reduce errors in certain pathological scenes." > > This sounds like an explanation of what we are struggling with. Would > someone (Greg?) be able to offer some extra info on what 'ambient > cache value corral' is (I did google this, but could not find anyting > that seems relevant), and also what constitutes 'pathological scenes'. > > Am I right in saying that the new, lower results are more accurate? > > Thank you so much. > > Cheers > > Axel > > > _______________________________________________ > Radiance-dev mailing list > Radiance-dev@radiance-online.org > https://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-dev > _______________________________________________ Radiance-dev mailing list Radiance-dev@radiance-online.org https://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-dev
