|
 |
JRG wrote:
> > 2. This aspect was not in your initial query. You did not even mention
> radiosity.
>
> Which means you didn't pay attention to my first post (radiosity is
> mentioned there).
Ok, my fault.
>
> > It's look like you're asking something while wanting something else.
> > (asking for new feature, while wanting radiosity evolution/debugging)
>
> That was just an example. I thought of the most general feature which might
> include what I was looking for.
>
> > BUT:
> > - I do not see the interest of it (as exposed in your initial request)
>
> YHO
Exactly, Even the no_* are still rarely used/needed.
And the scene you described did not convince me for the suggested solution.
>
> > - I'm personaly against it
>
> Morally?
Sort of.
Your suggestion needs to modify the very heart of the engine.
patches from safe/simple to unsafe/complex are in order (IMNSHO):
- new pattern
- new warp
- new object
- alternative behaviour/adding flags
So, when you asked directly for the most dangerous, it triggered a red flag ;-)
> > - Last, you came to that solution because you had a problem with
> radiosity...
> > Fixing the wheels won't put gazoline in the tank!
>
> As I said, I looked for the most general solution.
Well, I would said that you jumped to the conclusion :-)
Moreover, the problem of the "spy-mirror" (one side see the other, whereas
the other see only itself) was recently discussed (even if I cannot here find the
reference to it) and is very similar to your exposed problem.
You may have wanted to discuss your problem in newsgroups, before requesting
your solution... there is usually more than one way to solve a problem.
BTW, have a look in p.b.i, I have a proposition for your problem.
It's bigger than the needed code change for your solution, because it needs a
new object, but I consider it to be safer because it won't touch any shared code.
--
Non Sine Numine
http://grimbert.cjb.net/
Etiquette is for those with no breeding;
fashion for those with no taste.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
