|
 |
news:3B98B3A0.4A6CE23D@pacbell.net...
>
> Tom Melly wrote:
> >
> > "Jaime Vives Piqueres" <jai### [at] ignorancia org> wrote in message
> > news:3b98abd5$1@news.povray.org...
> > >
> > > Well, what I wanted to ask is why radiosity still needs +QR to work.
> >
> > IMHO this isn't a bad thing, since it makes it easy to do quick test
renders
> > without having to edit your source file. Of course, this could be
handled in
> > different ways, but if it ain't broke....
Well, perhaps it happens to me only, but I'm tired of turning on the
monitor after a long render to see that I forgot to put +qr (while the code
on the scene is ok). Just done it now, after sending the first message...:(
If the reason it's only that it is handy for turning on/off rad without
editing, why not have such a switch for photons also? (wich I'm not claiming
for...) ...or why not having it enabled by default? Anyhow, if you don't use
a radiosity{} block it doesn't works, isn't?
> And it is consistance with the way the official version of the program
> has operated since radiosity was introduced.
But if current radiosity has almost nothing to do with original one!!!
And, of course, many things have been removed or changed without considering
consistance with historical design... What I think is not consistent is
having a perfectly legal code not parsing, when I do not have specifically
siwtched it off. Hmmm...
Anyone knows a *good* reason that I can't figure out?
Jaime Vives Piqueres
W98SE on AMD Athlon 1.2Ghz, 256MB SDRAM, >50Db CPU fan.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
