"Fabien Mosen" wrote:
> "finish" is at the same hierarchic level as "pigment" and "normal",
> though it works very differently.  "pigment" and "normal" require a
> pattern and a map, while "finish" just has some keywords.

Pigment doesn't require a pattern and a map. In fact it's very common to
specify just a plain colour.

Normal doesn't require a pattern and a map either. The default is a plain
normal (which is usually achieved by simply not specifying the normal).

>  Of course, "finish" could get some "finish_map", but since, anyway,
> a pattern isn't *required*, it's still incoherent with "pigment" and
> "normal".

I disagree. Pigment and normal doesn't require a pattern - on the other
hand, if finish_map was implemented, pigment, normal, and finish would
indeed be very coherent.

I think finish_map should be implemented.

>  So, my idea is to put "finish" at the same level as "texture", and
> create a "surface" entity to group both.

I think finish is no more different from pigment and normal than pigment and
normal are different from each other. I think they should be grouped
together in the texture statement like they currently are.

If you want to make a map that affects pigment and normal but not finish you
can already do that. You use a texture_map - but with the new features in
MegaPOV and the future POV-Ray 3.5 you can also simply predeclare a pattern*
and use that pattern in both the pigment and normal statement.

* or if that isn't possible you can use pigment_pattern.

That method also has the advantage that you can have a map affect the
pigment and finish but not the normal, or the normal and finish but not the
pigment.

I can think of situations where I want a map to affect the normal and finish
but not the pigment. Therefore I think that it is not logical to separate
the finish from the pigment and normal.

I don't have any really good arguments against separating finish from
pigment and normal; I just think it's unnecessary and that a new group is
redundant. Instead I would like to see some really good argument *for* the
separation, because I haven't seen any yet IMHO.

What I've written here are only my own thoughts (of course). I would like a
good discussion!

> Also, this require that, inside the "finish" statement, finish
> properties are also grouped into separate entities.

I think that's a good idea.

Greetings,

Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated October 1)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org

Post a reply to this message