You're right about normals. I had this thing against normals because they
look flat when viewed from the side. But seeing it's  so small it doesn't
matter. I actually think photons might even work better or maybe you won't
see any difference any way...

Nekar

"Batronyx" <bat### [at] cadronhsacom> wrote in message
news:3abb3a6c$1@news.povray.org...
> I am saying they probably 'will' work. But why waste the extra CPU cycles
to
> use iso's when perturbed normals are likely just as effective?
> (Given the size of the microfacets). I really can't say about the photons
> though. Like you, I haven't really studied them yet. :)
>
> BatronyxT ^"^
> bat### [at] cadronhsacom
>
>
> Nekar Xenos wrote in message <3abaec19@news.povray.org>...
> >
> >"Batronyx" <bat### [at] cadronhsacom> wrote in message
> . . .and iso's and photons, while not hurting anything, might be
> >> overkill.
> >
> >If a surface is perfectly smooth it would be reflective so radiosity
> >shoulkdn't have any effect anyway. Why wouldn't isosurfaces and photons
> >work?  I haven't studied them yet, but I'm very keen to(so little time
and
> >so much to do)...
> >
> >Nekar
> >
> >
>
>

Post a reply to this message