Hello. I have a problem with my light. I have dynamic global illumination. When I use normal emmisive material everything is fine. But I wanted much more light without this huge bloom. So I used GiReplace.
But when I add this to my material my light look like this:
Can I do something about this ? (I’m talking about this weird square shape and wierd edges)
And I have one more bonus question. I have many lamps in my level. How I should light this ? First I wanted to do this with Light Material (with this GiReplacment) but maybe this isn’t good idea ? Maybe I should use classic Point and Spot Lights ?
what does your material look like with the GIReplace? I’m not seeing the same results on my end.
It would also be helpful to see any additional settings you’ve changed for your Post Process Volume, if you’re using one.
The blockiness of the Light Propagation Volume (assuming this is the Dynamic GI that you speak of), uses voxels which are square in nature so I would expect this to some degree and you can play around with the LPV settings if you place an unbound Post Process Volume in your scene to get some better results.
You can also use the Visualization mode for LPV to see the voxels in the volume. You can go to Show > Visualize > Light Propagation Volume.
It seems that lower size should make better quality because voxels are smaller = there is more of them = quality is better but also … light is disappearing ? I of course tried other light power variations but it isn’t it.
I think this is going to be an inherent problem with LPV and interior scenes. You can reduce some of the light leaking by adjusting the Light Injection Bias, and the voxel blockiness by decreasing the size, but with interior scenes and walls closer together it will be much more noticeable to see some of the blockiness of the voxels. This is largely why it has been recommended to use LPV with exterior scenes primarily.
Here is two example images. One with the default size and the other with a smaller voxel size. I’m also using a Light Injection Bias of 1.5.
In this example you can see that using the smaller size gives better results. for smoother edges that aren’t as blocky, but it’s still a voxel box so it won’t be completely smoothed edges. This is also why it works better for exterior scenes where light leaking and this artifact are not as much an issue.
Thank You. I read about it and I am creating outdoor enviro but still, even after hour of fun with numbers in variuous places it still look just bad (also whole lamp and part of map which is affected by this lighting look like in “unlit” mode )
I don’t know. Maybe it is just bad idea for my kind of project ? I wanted to get 100% from real time global illumination and lighting but maybe I should stick with point and spot light ? Or maybe there is some other lighting method better than point&spot ?
I already activated Raytrace Distance Shadow but this looks nice only with my main Light Source, this option look horrible with point light
Looking at your image, I would expect the object to look like that if the underside is the emissive material portion. The emissive nature with LPV will still using a voxel which will not provide the light blocking in this type of asset. The emissive materials and LPV also do not cast shadows, which can be another factor here. So for this of object, I would use a small spot light and just have an emissive material that isn’t enabled to use with LPV. For the environment though LPV should not pose as much an issue, aside from the light leaking in tighter areas.
Ray Traced Distance Field Shadows can look good, but will probably take some tweaking on the part of the mesh distance field resolution so that there is a good enough resolution for the shadows to cast from and block. Also, when using Point or Spot lights with distance fields can help to use a small source radius size so that this acts like a small bulb and gives better fall off shadows. If you decide to test this method this information can probably help you get the results you like. If not, just using a point or spot light should work well enough too.
Once again Thank You very much for all Your help !
I really hate to bother you again but I must admit (with shame) that even with google I couldn’t manage to make that shadows work. I googled and found “mesh distance field resolution” and I tried adding higher numbers in both meshes that are casting and that are receiving shadows but this didn’t work. When I typed 2 in mesh resolution there was very slight change, so I tried 5 and there was no further change even with 20 and 40 multplier.
I tried searching for other settings in my LPV and my Project and World settings but I didn’t find anything attached to Mesh resolution
Mesh Distance Fields can only be improved so much before increasing the DF Resolution Scale has no effect. The DF resolution scale really only continues to work depending on the size of the mesh and complexity of the mesh.
To visualize the difference and troubleshoot Distance Field Meshes you will need to use the viewmode for it by going to the Viewpor > Show > Visualize > Mesh Distance Fields. The DF resolution scale really only continues to work depending on the size of the mesh and complexity of the mesh.
This page’s Troubleshooting and Quality section can help better show off what I’ve described above.
Yes, I found it earlier, but it seems that in my scene I really cannot use it
For example I have a tree (pretty big, with branches) and shadow was horrible at resolution 1, at resolution 2 it was a little bit better but still horrible. multiplier 3, 4 or even 20 or 100 didn’t change anything .
I wanted to Thank You once more for all Your help. Thank You very much !
(also whole lamp and part of map which is affected by this lighting look like in “unlit” mode 
)