Ron Parker wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 10:06:23 -0500, Francois Labreque wrote:
> >
> >
> >Ron Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> If I were to propose a rule of thumb, I would say ambient and diffuse
> >> should be roughly the same number, and that ambient shouldn't be included
> >> in the requirement that filter+transmit+reflection+diffuse+specular <= 1.
> >
> >Even though, you hint on it in the next paragraph, you should point out
> >that this formula is only valid if you are not using radiosity.
> 
> From a purely theoretical standpoint, I fail to see why this should be
> the case for objects that don't emit their own light (other than the
> reflection/specular thing.)  Could you elaborate?

Sorry, I was refering to the diffuse=ambient part of your statement, not
the rest of the formula, which I agree with.

There.  Better?

-- 
Francois Labreque | Unfortunately, there's no such thing as a snooze
    flabreque     | button on a cat who wants breakfast.
        @         |      - Unattributed quote from rec.humor.funny
   videotron.ca

Post a reply to this message