You're right, lol - I must have had renderosity on my brain. I said it instead of radiosity all along.

No - the basic tenet isn't wrong. Whether you use IBL, AO, IDL or Global Lighting - they are not more accurate because they are not ligting simulatons (radiosity is), they are ligting poseurs - they fake lighting.

Falloff by formula is one kind of distance control. It often is an addendum to RANGE which, in many programs can be specified. The "falloff' tells the software how the light fades within the range.

Distance controls do not stop light rays from doing things like lighting ALL forward-facing (to the light source) surfaces from being lit up, distance controls just cut them off...by formula.

In rea life, things like walls and hair and skulls and objects stop light rays...OK. a few bounce around and become ambient due to the nature of the surface they hit. Yes, real light falls off with distance but...in the meantime it does not pass through surfaces. 

I repeat, renderer light rays pass through objects. That's not wrong. Wasn't wrong yesterday, won't be wrong tomorrow. It's the reason nostril light-up has been a historic problem with Poser. 

I'm not pissed at you. If you can teach me more, teach. I'm not new here. I've been around under one form or another for more than eight years. I don't always write,, haven't always spent much time writing here. I don't live online, this forum (or any other) is not my home. I have a different life, as you apparently do too. I have gotten help here,before,  I have helped others here before. In terms of our discussion, it is not important if you remember me. I remember me and that is enough.

Global lighting, AO and IBL were all potentially in play in Poser vers. 5 thru 7, depending on the choices made by the artist-creator. Before that, without Firefly, only global lighting could be used to fake radiosity. IDL is new to 8 - I don't have 8 so I can't address it's specifics but...

Theoretically, if it's not a radiosity calculator...it's a faker ... of one kind or another. Changing the initials means we have still another way to fake radiosity. I repeat, since the invention of raytracing, it's been a non-stop race to find newer and better ways to soften its result.

If you're just going to say I'm wrong you're not much help - to me, the original poster here, or anyone else.. No one can learn from that. I am patient, I can wait for your return. Please don't shove the responsibility for your claims onto someone else.

I don't get angry over this stuff. We may disagree, but I won't get angry...I promise. And it's not nice of you to assume that I am. I assume we will have good civilized conversation and that we both will learn things, I hope you will assume the same. I apologize to everyone for saying renderosity for radiosity...but once the term is corrected, there's nothing wrong with what I wrote. If there is, I am most willing to learn from what you have to offer. 

Sooo...I am ready for you to actually correct me, i.e. provide insight into my errors.