[Archived phorum post from squ1.com v2 by clarice]
Hi again,
I have some doubts related to the acoustic tutorial - part that evaluates rays and particles. Probably I'm wrongly considering reflections equal to the number of bounces.
Working in the "reflector coverage" part (using the tutorial model called simple theatre.eco), I performed the calculation, as suggested by the tutorial, using 4 bounces then I changed the number of bounces for 2, 5 and 10 and the results didn't change.
It is said in the beginning of this exercise that to evaluate reflector coverage Ecotect considers only first-order reflections which is coherent with the results that didn't change when I set 2,5 or 10 bounces.
My doubt is why did you say that it is necessary to set 4 bounces in the rays and particle panel to evaluate reflector coverage if it'll only consider 2 reflections? Is it simply to save time during the calculation, because you chose spherically distributed rays? or maybe I'm confusing English words again?
When you refer to number of bounces aren't you refering to number of reflections?
Can anyone give me a hand on that, please?
Thanks again
Regards,
Clarice

Re: Confusing reflections and bounces
[Archived phorum post from squ1.com v2 by Andrew]
Hi Clarice,
When you generate geometric acoustic rays, 'reflector coverage' is only one display option. You can choose to animate the particles, consider surface incidence and a whole range of others. It is true that reflector coverage only considers the first bounce, however you may want to use the same rays for many different types of analysis, so you calculate the number of bounces based on the maximum required of all your analysis.
When Caroline specified 4 bounces in the tutorial, I think this was so that you could actually see the rays bouncing around and display a decent animation. One bounce, though adequate for reflector coverage, would not have been enough for this.
Hope that helps...
Regards,
Andrew
Dr. Andrew Marsh
Square One research Pty Ltd
Re: Confusing reflections and bounces
[Archived phorum post from squ1.com v2 by clarice]
Thanks again Andrew,
Things are crystal clear now.
Regards,
Clarice