Well I haven't for 2 reasons;

1. I'm not sure if it IS a bug: if it is down to changing the ray accelerator, then this is a parameter (limit), not a bug.

2. I almost never turn IC off because of the stupid render times, so it's not likely to be an issue for me.

I'd prefer SM to introduce aperture settings to the cameras in Poser so that light levels are calculated without having to turn the sun into an atomic bomb going off outside the window.

And while they're at it... caustics.

If it's an issue for you, feel free to post a ticket. I won't mind!

I haven't posted this incident, but somebody else may wish to.  in both PP2012 and PP2014, one can see that turning off IC eliminates splotches at orthogonal intersections (main problem area for IDL).  however, new component of FFRender adds surface artifacts that resemble bad shadow bias or bad AO settings, even though neither was used.

after they introduced IDL in P7 and P8, I believed that using bevelling or micropolygons at corners would eliminate problem, but I didn't try it because turning off IC was introduced in P9.  whilst nobody turns off IC, it's alot faster now with PP2014, in case they want to adjust FFRender for SR 4.1.

here's one using lite source and room with bevelled corners (both cube_round).   lessens dark corner splotches and sevl. orders of magnitude faster than render with no IC.

I've only noticed those corner splotches in scenes where I loaded the walls independent of each other. I noticed that increasing the thickness of the walls, or having them intersect each other ever so slightly also reduces the splotches. Lowering the shading rate to .2 or below also does away with them. I haven't experimented with much of what has been posted here, but I intend to see what Poser 9 on a 32 bit system will produce, seeing as I can only render in 2 separate processes...

In my very first image on this thread (the room with the wooden floor) the wall intersection has poor geometry (an anomoly with the product that usually doesn't cause issues). I filled that space with a curved primitive (the arch) and coloured it black. Under normal circumstances this was enough to fix light leakage.

My shading rate is always 0.2 or less for finished renders.

The issue, I believe, is that when you bump up the strength of lights and ambient lights it overpowers the geometry. I've had random leaks through very solid interestions at the really high light settings.

Again, this is why I hope SM add a capacity for setting 'exposure' into the cameras. It would reduce blotches, significantly improve render times, and give much greater scope for creative renders.

Thanks to a recent post by Miss Nancy I decided to investigate the Tone Mapping options in Firefly as an alternative to cranking up light values and ambient values to simulate different 'exposure settings'. Starting with the same premise of 100ASA film shooting outdoors, a base setting of ambient sky set to 1 and sun infinite light set to 100% equates to an exposure time on a standard SLR camera of 1/60th of a second at around f.4 or 5.6.

So, Tone mapping for the default light setting (100% amb 1), off.

Tone mapping for 1/30th of a second, base set to 2, exponential set to 1.Equates to light at 200%, ambient 2 on the skydome.

for 1/15th of a second, base 2, exp. 2  (400% sunlight, ambient 4 on skydome)

for 1/8th of a second, base 2, exp. 3

for 1/4 of a second, base 2, exp. 4, and so on.Base 2 meant I only needed to change the exponential value to get a progressive doubling of light values.

To replicate the light levels for the very first image in this thread, I reset ambient to 1 and light to 100, set tone mapping base to 2 and exponential to 7.

Results? Image is somewhat washed out (regardless of whether I use exponential or HSV exp, although HSV is a bit better). Tones are evened across the board.

Also, and this was a surprise, the artifacts caused by light leaking through geometry seams appear at exactly the same level they do when ramping up light settings. So regardless that the light was at 100%, Firefly ramps it up itself in the calculations.

So... who cares? Well, I though it interesting to get a similar result by two methods. It also means that exposure settings ARE in Poser (at least in Firefly), they just aren't explained well and aren't very good. If the algorithm can be fixed so that Firefly recognises intersecting geometry as a 'no go' for light rays and they can tweak the colour averaging, they're almost there...

If you're wondering why no pictures, I spent 6 hours doing many renders with this testing settings and doing comparisons, then considered it a failed experiment. I didn't realise it might be useful to someone else until 2 days later... like today...