"Batronyx" <bat### [at] cadronhsacom> wrote in message
news:3bb1588c$1@news.povray.org...
> "Ron Parker" <ron### [at] povrayorg> wrote in message
> news:slr### [at] fwicom...
> > On Tue, 25 Sep 2001 18:49:03 -0400, Slime wrote:
> > >If you translate a light source, and that light source has a
> > >projected_through object specified, the projected_ through object is
*not*
> > >translated along with it. Is that the intended behavior?
> >
> > I think the projected_through object should be translated too.  Anyone
> > have any objections?
> >
>
> It depends. Considering a relatively flat object, and the behavior of the
light
> when the ray bisecting its major axis is perpendicular: does the behavior
change
> if the ray isn't perpendicular? If so, (and even without testing, I expect
it
> would) then perhaps it should just be an 'option'.

Wha-?  ;-)

Yeah, it changes because of distances to scene objects being illuminated, if
that's what you meant.  That happens anyhow.

The way it is now sets up a kind of static scene object as a shaped window
of light being shone which means the light source is the variable as to
where light falls.
A union to the light source could mean having unchanging relative positions
so that both object and light are variable together as one.  Is now
actually, just by adding the same transformation into the projected_through.
Double effort I guess and that's probably enough reason to consider it.  If
it can be done already though and addition of a unlinking (hmmm,
"unlink"...) is necessary then most important choice would be which to
default to.  If done at all.

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message