So.. this may be a stupid question, but is indirect lighting calculated from ALL the geometry in the scene, including things behind the camera ect? Reason why I'm asking is that I've been trying to render a pic of Alyson in the PAD, and even after 10 hours!  of rendering it had only precaldulated 1/3 of the picture. Now the PAD is a pretty large scene with lots of things the light can potentially bounce around in.. so.. I assume it would be a good idea to delete the bits that aren't seen in the picture anyway, right?

Or do I just have a shabby machine (didnt' think so but Bryce-like rendering times aren't what I'm used to either)

As I understand it, the short answer is 'yes'.

When using indirect lighting, things like IBL and AO are completely unnecessary and will drastically increase render times when used with indirect lighting, so disable any IBL lights in your scene and ensure that AO is turned off for any remaining lights.

Another tip: transmapped hair really slows things down. In the 'properties' tab, unchecking 'visible in raytracing' will speed things up (the hair + shadows still render OK).

 Ah good idea. I knew about the transmapped hair but I forgot it in this render. I'll try that, plus delete anything outside the actual viewpoint and see if it helps. It can only get better LOL

I'd think twice about deleting stuff not in the viewpoint: indirect light needs something to bounce off!

If you do delete stuff, I'd recommend adding bagginsbill's env sphere with a suitable image on it: I did some with / without comparisons and it makes a huge difference.

 I kept the walls but deleted all the unseen furniture and clutter :) Exactly for that reason. And it has helped a lot. The image is now, in less than 1 hour, further than it was earlier after 10 hours. That is with the other optimization tricks, too - the transmapped hair and such. 

AO on lights is disabled automatically when using IL. Not AO on materials (in case it's useful to build shaders out of it). You have to disbale the AO nodes on materials by yourself if there are some in your shaders.

And i think all the surrounded pieces of geometry are including in the IL calculation, as it is how it works in other softwares that use IL. But note the *s  ;)

Definitely. I did an IL test render of an old scene using Streets of the Med, and the ground and building roof tiles are picking up light (a bit too much, actually) from the EnvSphere colour directly overhead, well out of camera view.
(Also in the same scene, P8 inverse square falloff lights are working really well).

As others said, keep your walls, which I understand you did. Just saying it again for other readers.

As to IBL versus EnvSphere, they're actually the same thing. Poser 8 deals with IBL differently when IDL is enabled. Effectively, the IBL image is mapped onto a giant sphere that surrounds your scene.

The only difference really is this: what do you have? If you have an equirectangular image, then use the EnvSphere, because it will provide matching lighting and scenery. If you only have an angular map image (IBL light probe style) and no scenery, then skip the EnvSphere and just use the IBL.

Quote - As others said, keep your walls, which I understand you did. Just saying it again for other readers.

As to IBL versus EnvSphere, they're actually the same thing. Poser 8 deals with IBL differently when IDL is enabled. Effectively, the IBL image is mapped onto a giant sphere that surrounds your scene.

The only difference really is this: what do you have? If you have an equirectangular image, then use the EnvSphere, because it will provide matching lighting and scenery. If you only have an angular map image (IBL light probe style) and no scenery, then skip the EnvSphere and just use the IBL.

Good info there! I was actually doing some tests to determine what was the difference between the two (env sphere and ibl) when using IL :)

Quote - As I understand it, the short answer is 'yes'.
Another tip: transmapped hair really slows things down. In the 'properties' tab, unchecking 'visible in raytracing' will speed things up (the hair + shadows still render OK).

I thought that if you uncheck "visible in raytracing" then ray-traced shadows won't render.

Quote - I thought that if you uncheck "visible in raytracing" then ray-traced shadows won't render.

Oddly enough, they do. It seems to affect only things like specular.

Quote - > Quote - I thought that if you uncheck "visible in raytracing" then ray-traced shadows won't render.

Oddly enough, they do. It seems to affect only things like specular.

That's good to know. In the past, I haven't unchecked "visible in raytracing" because of the fear of losing shadows. I do know that when unchecked they won't reflect or refract.

Oh, so vampires are actually just invisible in raytracing. That explains a lot. Hmmm.

How much RAM does your computer have?

Sorry, I don't think this is right. An object that is invisible to raytracing does not cast raytrace shadows.
Here is my evidence... but I'm willing to accept any evidence to the contrary! :O)

Left: Body invisible to raytracing
Centre: Body visible to raytracing
Right: head and neck invisible to raytracing

Quote - How much RAM does your computer have?

4Gb

Intel dual core 2.66gHz.

1½ year old now but still going strong. Sorta...