Fact is that there is a clearly different result if you make the two
objects overlap (should I use merge to do that or not?) or if you have a
little space between the objects.

Maybe we've to have a look the reality, which of the two solutions comes
closer to nature...


Margus Ramst wrote:
> 
> I have always followed the crude logic that such objects can either
> touch or be or bit apart, but they can never intersect (in real life).
> In the glass and water example it probably doesn't matter much (Ken, I
> believe the water and glass would interreflect either way?)
> I think the cylinder should not extend into the plane (esp. when the
> plane is opaque and the cylinder is transparent but tinted) Otherwise
> the part of the cylinder inside the plane is invisible and its colour is
> not substracted. This looks unnatural.
> 
> Margus
> 
> Ken wrote:
> >
> > Hi Micha,
> >
> >    I have run into this problem on occasion and what I do is
> > for the plane problem I extend it slightly into the plane. This
> > helps get rid of multiple reflections between the bottom of
> > the cylinder and the surface of the plane.
> >    For water in a glass I always scale the water a little larger.
> > If you make it smaller you have an unnatural reflection situation
> > between the glass surface and the water surface. Just keep your
> > over scaling to a minimum amount - something like .0001 is
> > enough. I believe this is the recommended method somewhere
> > in the docs but I'm unsure which section. Probably under cgs
> > operations.
> >
> >   Other people may handle these situations differently but
> > they have worked well for me.
> >
> > Ken Tyler

-- 
---------------------------------------------------
visit my homepage:
 http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Pines/7992/
the POVRay Objects Collection:
 http://twysted.net/povobjects/
---------------------------------------------------

Post a reply to this message