dose the mylar need to be compleatly flat?

[TeaTreeOil]

have you got a light meter? do you do experiments in the grow room? if you have one?? or just play with your PC all day posting graphes that does not add up? after all its only a simulation it is not real other people go in to the grow room and put things like light meters under lights and take readings from different materials to show what works best " THEY DO IT" you play about on the PC! These people make money from doing these experiments writing books on growing they have seen loads of grow rooms you have seen just 1 and thats under a small CFL light ( even if its that) come on tree who is going to take someone seriously who just posts make believe simulation rendering garbage?

I play microsoft flight aviation simulator and have been playing it for years and years does that make me an aircraft pilot?

You taking a light meter and incorrectly using it is about a billion times less accurate than my commercial-quality ray tracing.

I think you're an idiot... if you want me to be completely honest.

Architects, engineers, scientists, physicists, etc. use digital tools to aid them in their endeavors. I do as well.

 

[9inch bigbud]

You taking a light meter and incorrectly using it is about a billion times less accurate than my commercial-quality ray tracing.

I think you're an idiot... if you want me to be completely honest.

Architects, engineers, scientists, physicists, etc. use digital tools to aid them in their endeavors. I do as well.

and I think you're full of shit if you want me to be completely honest.



and there are real people who grow real weed in real growrooms under real lights with real results. I do as well

 

[TeaTreeOil]

And there are people who architect their grows and are exceeding your yield by an order of magnitude.

 

[9inch bigbud]

And there are people who architect their grows and are exceeding your yield by an order of magnitude.

i and a lot of others have asked you to prove it a 100x or more, but you still haven't/ can't.

now is your perfect opportunity to post some CFL grows that mean somthing.

 

[TeaTreeOil]

i and a lot of others have asked you to prove it a 100x or more, but you still haven't/ can't.

now is your perfect opportunity to post some CFL grows that mean somthing.

I prove it with hours of my own CPU cycles/sec. That use realistic ray tracing, caustics, radiosity, photon mapping, and global illumination.

You ask for 'proof' that requires months within seconds.

Get fuckin real.

Check out CFL grow journals. Others have proven it. Myself doing so would be redundant.

 

[ozzy]

what best to use to wipe clean the mylar? Mine is dirty from when i spray. I tried some windex and it sucked

 

[nickfury510]

and I think you're full of shit if you want me to be completely honest.



and there are real people who grow real weed in real growrooms under real lights with real results. I do as well

exactley..everybody is a fuckin google grower these days....i love it when people make all these claims as to what they do and what they know but have yet to produce any results..just "theories and computer simulation" I never knew growing herb was a video game these days....

 

[AeroKing]

I prove it with hours of my own CPU cycles/sec. That use realistic ray tracing, caustics, radiosity, photon mapping, and global illumination.

Wahahahah!!!!

ROFL!!!

He just responded to a challenge to prove a himself with another bullshit "well my computer says that..."

That's hilarious.

Do you grow your reefer in a simulated program and get high through your wifi?

Dude you don't know shit about growing.

Your graphs and formula's are flawed.

You don't account for real world variables.

You've never put your theories to application.

You have no business coming here pushing your bullshit spoon-fed "ideas" when you have NO EXPERIENCE to back up anything.

When and if you ever actually set up a grow op and try different lighting, You'll humbly come back here and admit that you were full of shit.

But you won't, so keep telling us how "on paper, you should be able to...". Oh, I mean "if you architect your grow you should be able to...".

Dipshit.

 

[nickfury510]

I prove it with hours of my own CPU cycles/sec. That use realistic ray tracing, caustics, radiosity, photon mapping, and global illumination.

You ask for 'proof' that requires months within seconds.

Get fuckin real.

Check out CFL grow journals. Others have proven it. Myself doing so would be redundant.

 

[Brick Top]

Wahahahah!!!!

ROFL!!!

Dude you don't know shit about growing.

That has been proven repeatedly but yet he inaccurately claims that he does know what he is talking about.

Computer simulations are fantastic things and have been more than proven to be of great value and worth.

All you have to do to show that is to look at the IPCC computer simulation results that came up with the hockey stick results in regards to the myth of manmade global warming.

Of course as it turns out that it doesn’t matter in the least what figures you use the result always comes out in a hockey stick shape.

The simulation/programming/formulas are inaccurate, they are wrong and they point out how totally inaccurate the results of using computer simulation can be.

They are a perfect example of garbage in, garbage out.

But to some if a computer spits it out then it just has to be accurate.

 

[TeaTreeOil]

You guys are so funny.

Living in the stoned age.

 

[9inch bigbud]

Wahahahah!!!!

ROFL!!!

He just responded to a challenge to prove a himself with another bullshit "well my computer says that..."

That's hilarious.

Do you grow your reefer in a simulated program and get high through your wifi?

Dude you don't know shit about growing.

Your graphs and formula's are flawed.

You don't account for real world variables.

You've never put your theories to application.

You have no business coming here pushing your bullshit spoon-fed "ideas" when you have NO EXPERIENCE to back up anything.

When and if you ever actually set up a grow op and try different lighting, You'll humbly come back here and admit that you were full of shit.

But you won't, so keep telling us how "on paper, you should be able to...". Oh, I mean "if you architect your grow you should be able to...".

Dipshit.

HAHA you crack me up m8

Do you grow your reefer in a simulated program and get high through your wifi?

PMSL!

 

[TeaTreeOil]

That has been proven repeatedly but yet he inaccurately claims that he does know what he is talking about.

Computer simulations are fantastic things and have been more than proven to be of great value and worth.

All you have to do to show that is to look at the IPCC computer simulation results that came up with the hockey stick results in regards to the myth of manmade global warming.

Of course as it turns out that it doesn’t matter in the least what figures you use the result always comes out in a hockey stick shape.

The simulation/programming/formulas are inaccurate, they are wrong and they point out how totally inaccurate the results of using computer simulation can be.

They are a perfect example of garbage in, garbage out.

But to some if a computer spits it out then it just has to be accurate.

You describe yourself better than anyone else.

All my renders are accurately scaled. The programming/formulas behind them are backed by hard science.

The accuracy of mental ray: http://images.google.com/images?client=opera&rls=en&q=mental ray&sourceid=opera&oe=utf-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi

 

[TeaTreeOil]

Rendered with mental ray.

 

[TeaTreeOil]

Also, you have have seen a lot of mental ray renderings:

http://www.mentalimages.com/gallery/motion-pictures.html

As mental ray is used in major motion pictures.

Enjoy.

 

[t@intshredder]

I prove it with hours of my own CPU cycles/sec. That use realistic ray tracing, caustics, radiosity, photon mapping, and global illumination.

You ask for 'proof' that requires months within seconds.

Get fuckin real.

Check out CFL grow journals. Others have proven it. Myself doing so would be redundant.

All I could think about when I read this was:

 

[TeaTreeOil]

This message is hidden because t@intshredder is on your ignore list.

This is the best feature ever.

 

[t@intshredder]

This is the best feature ever.

 

[TeaTreeOil]

So I rendered an image of t@intshredder....

Whatcha think?

And you claim renderings aren't accurate. Hmph!

 

[t@intshredder]

So I rendered an image of t@intshredder....

Whatcha think?