Learning Forum

[jie li]

The BRDF results of the two cases are completely inconsistent for the same parameter surface, is this because of different methods? thanks

[Amrita Pati]

Hi Jie,

Are you calculating the BSDF from the files given in these 2 examples? I am supposing it could be the data format, as the 2nd one is supposed to be consistent with Spoes. But let me test it and get back to you.

Regards,
Amrita

[jie li]

Yes, I downloaded both examples to calculate the BRDF of the surface, and I found that both  have the same geometric modeling method. I tried to use the same parameters to simulation, but the BRDF results were wildly different.  

I only changed the roughness to 0. and then the grid accuracy was reduced to level 1, the scanning azimuth was changed to 0 , and the index is3.84 (Si) ,  and the simulation results were as follows. the first come from "Bidirectional_scattering_distribution_function_(BSDF)"

The second figure from "Diffuse Scattering Film for Automotive Display", which has the same simulation parameters as the first, i got the result by clicking "run", and running the analysis script.

[jie li]

 

Yes, I downloaded both examples to calculate the BRDF of the surface, and I found that both  have the same geometric modeling method. I tried to use the same parameters to simulation, but the BRDF results were wildly different.  

I only changed the roughness to 0. and then the grid accuracy was reduced to level 1, the scanning azimuth was changed to 0 , and the index is3.84 (Si) ,  and the simulation results were as follows. the first come from “Bidirectional_scattering_distribution_function_(BSDF)”

The second figure from “Diffuse Scattering Film for Automotive Display”, which has the same simulation parameters as the first, i got the result by clicking “run”, and running the analysis script.