Posted by J. Peter Horne on November 06, 1998 at 14:30:12:
In Reply to: Re: "Real" lighting specs / analysis posted by Peter Bacot on November 06, 1998 at 09:32:15:
Here's my two (or more) cents worth about Lightscape.
I have used Lightscape and found it to be quite capable for rendering nice images. The interface isn't all that bad and it has resonable speed. It's animation capabilities are adequate and it also has VRML support. It also does energy analysis studies.
All that being said you might ask "why use Radiance?". Radiance deals with reality while Lightscape is pure fiction. Lightscape cuts corners in its calculations to achieve its speed. It will put you in the ballpark but when your trying to convince a client about a design solution, "in the ballpark" just doesn't cut it.
There are other issues, related to radiosity and ray-tracing and how they're handled in the two programs, that I don't have on the "top of my head". Maybe someone else would like to address those issues.
The bottom line for me is Lightscape is a very good program but has nothing to do with "reality". Also, while the "interface" for Radiance is not user friendly if you set up your files and libraries in a convienent order I feel that Radiance is more flexable and is just as easy to set up a solution.