Rune <run### [at] mobilixnetdk> wrote:
> The very concept of ray-tracing is just a faked version of how nature works.
> However, it looks nice, so we don't care. The result is what counts.
> Likewise with lens-flares. If they look like lens flares, then they *are*
> lens flares. I don't see why you define one faked method as being real nut
> another as not being real.

  There's a difference.
  Lighting is based (more or less) in a physical model (eg. the usage of the
cosine as the falloff function for lighting comes from physics). The concept
and implementation of IOR is based on the physical model (the same math
applies). Photon mapping is based in a physical model.
  However, faking lens flares with colored discs is in no way based on any
physical model, nor any math from physics is used to make them. They are
just put "somewhere where they look good", without being based on anything.

> You said the word yourself: "simulate". If it's just a simulation, it's not
> real (or "true").

  Simulation means (usually numerical) approximation. Since we can't have
infinite accuracy, things have to be approximated and simulated.
  However, whether this simulation is based on physical mathematics or
if it's just something "which looks good" but is not based on anything,
makes a big difference.

  POV-Ray does not support simulating lens flares. There's no math in POV-Ray
to calculate them. Period.

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message