>
> Again, these optical effects(diffraction, double refraction,
> polarization...) are either too application-specific or too difficult to
> code/computationally expensive to compute. POV-Ray isn't a complete
> optics simulation, no program is(though some come close).

I guess with these programs it is customary to cut corners, like Povray does
with caustics. I mean, no one's going to model water droplets to make a
cloud, right. I wonder if you can make distant trees or plants using noise
instead of having individual leafs.
But still, say I want to model polarized sunglasses. As you know, they make
it easier to see underwater. Or, say I want to test an anti-glare coating and
I want to choose the coefficients that will cause the right frequencies to
interfere destructively. Does that mean I should get (or make) a specific
program?

> BTW, I don't think gypsum is double refracting, I think you mean calcite.

Huh, was it calcite? You may be right. I had my doubts. I used to know all
the minerals way back when.

> POV can calculate direct light, diffuse light (radiosity), refraction of
> light going to the camera, and with photon mapping (in MegaPOV), the
> refraction of light from light sources to surfaces in the scene. There
> is another MegaPOV patch which simulates dispersion (wavelength dependant
> refraction). You shouldn't rely on it simulating more.

You know, maybe I should try this Megapov, especially the
wavelength-dependent refraction. It's just that I'm a bit disappointed when I
see people who claim to make beautiful sparkling diamonds, but with lack of
color. Even the simplest things in life, like bevelling on the sides of
mirrors, or a lens next to a mirror make some spectacular effects. Sadly, if
you're not looking hard enough, you don't even know what to fake.

Post a reply to this message