Who talked about removing no_image and no_reflection?

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

Imagine this situation: you have a very small room. If you put the camera
into it you have to use a wide angle to catch all the scene, but everything
gets distorted. Now you can use the no_image flag to *delete* one wall so
that you can put the camera outside the room. Every reflective object will
reflect the wall so everything should look right. The problem arises if
you're using radiosity, since the *no_image* wall won't *participate* to the
radiosity calculations, which is not what I want.

Thus, my request could be turned into "add a radiosity flag", to turn on and
off radiosity calculations for specific objects (but no_image should not
imply no_radiosity) or, at least, allow radiosity calculations for no_image
objects.

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

--
Jonathan.

"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3c250fcc$1@news.povray.org...
> In article <3c24e9f2@news.povray.org> , "JRG" <jrg### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>
> > I think this would be a much more powerful flag than no_image.
>
> Great idea! It would make the usage so unintuitive that nobody could use
it
> and it would have the great feature of breaking old scenes.
>
> What is wrong with the current no_image and no_reflection flags other than
> that they are easier to use?
>
>     Thorsten

Post a reply to this message