JRG wrote:
> 

1. Learn to quote, put your answer after the text you are responding to.
Thanks; it make it easier to build the dialogue.

> Who talked about removing no_image and no_reflection?
> 

2. Nobody, but from your description, no_image and no_reflection would have been 
possible weaker forms, hence removing them might have helped to simplify the SDL. 

> The problem with the current implementation is that radiosity calculations
> don't take into account no_image objects.

2. This aspect was not in your initial query. You did not even mention radiosity.
   It's look like you're asking something while wanting something else.
   (asking for new feature, while wanting radiosity evolution/debugging)

[Example deleted/skipped]

> That being said, I would still like a visibility_level flag as described in
> my previous post.

3. As I had done the debugging of no_reflection and no_image, it would not cost you
too much. You would probably increase each object with another unsigned integer 
(short ?) and might have to surcharge the NO_IMAGE and NO_REFLECTION flags.

BUT:
 - I do not see the interest of it (as exposed in your initial request)
 - I'm personaly against it
 - it is too late for 3.5, but too soon for doing your own patch 
    because 3.5 source is not yet available.
 - if you want it in 3.1g, you will have to reintegrate some patches first.
   (the no_image and no_reflection, at least).
 - I think you did not consider enough the potential of your request:
    what if I want some object to appear ONLY for trace_level 2,3,4,7,8,9 and 
    from 12 to 31 ? You might be opening a can of worms...
 - Last, you came to that solution because you had a problem with radiosity...
   Fixing the wheels won't put gazoline in the tank!

-- 
Non Sine Numine
http://grimbert.cjb.net/

Post a reply to this message