Talk:Ambient occlusion

message: Total and utter crap, this article must be rewritten from scratch.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.52.243.58 (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

message: This picture needs shadows to illustrate the point better, even though this isn't an article about shadows. It looks wrong without them, and they would be used in a real-life application. Same with the combined picture. Erudecorp 22:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically the combined picture has shadows... shadows are simply the consequence of an occluded light source.  In the combined image a spherical light source is correctly occluded by the bug geometry.  I'm guessing you're referring to shadows from a highly directional light source, though I'm not convinced this is a relevant comparison here. (Convince me that it is! :) Trevorgoodchild 01:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! That is what I'm referring to. I don't think you'll need any convincing once you see what I mean. The second picture (diffuse only) uses a directional light (or two). But no shadows (occlusion, like you said). So the third image only gets shadows from the sky box, not from the directional light. It's also odd that the third image is darker, even though it has two lighting models. It think the maker of the images put them into Photoshop as two layers, and multiplied them, instead of screening them. It's true that the spherical light source is occluded, but not the directional light. The person that made the original set of images hasn't done anything since 2005. Can you remake the three images? Erudecorp ? * 22:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The diffuse only uses just ONE light, with lambert-shading, with the lamp at the same spot as the camera, just try it in any 3d editor and you'll see it's just like that... Plus, all shadows cast by this light are behind whatever casted that shadow, like the bug limbs... Besides, 3rd image is darker because it indeed multiplies, 0 being black and 1 being white. but that makes: white * black = black, thus making it darker. But what I think would be even more easy for 3d viewing would be ambient occlusion + Z/distantfog/(whatever it's called, farther blacker and closer brighter), I ran a few tests with a head model I have and it was even best for viewing the 3d-ness of the object that way. 189.5.88.158 (talk) 05:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

text:  I think it's not only meant to look generally better, I think it's got something to do with emulating radiosity with fewer processor usage. Though it should reflect in the surfaces until it hit the 'outside' to make the proper calculation, ending in being almost as processor consuming as radiosity, I guess... Dunno... I saw it somewhere saying it got something to do with radiosity, dunno where... 189.5.88.158 (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like images from a Scanning electron microscope - co-incidence ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 09:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: diffuse only

message: Am I correct, that ambient occlusion came to computer games graphics first time with directx 10.1 version or earlier?
:I don't know if it first was included in DirectX in version 10.1, but I'm sure that when it came to DirectX, it had already been implemented in video games for a while already. Also, please sign you comments with four tildes (~~~~) so it is possible to see who is writing. —Kri (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Since DirectX 10.1?

message: there are 
*Broad Temporal Ambient Obscurance developed by Microsoft
*Multi-scale Volumetric Occlusion used by Unity
--171.43.186.100 (talk) 06:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variants