John Mellerick wrote:
> 
> I'm sorry if you feel the need to resort to aggressive posts...

I haven't, yet.

> I am aware that no one is forcing me to
> use arealights, but that doesn't mean that I'm not allowed to suggest that
> the feature could use some improvement and revision.

And if you have any practical suggestions, then by all means, present 
them. So far, all I've seen out of you is some tests demonstrating that 
when rendering time and memory are no object, an array of point lights 
does a better job of simulating a diffuse light source than a feature 
with no purpose other than making soft shadows.. something which I think 
most of us already knew.

> Come on - the article test were just two spheres and two planes, give me a
> *little* credit please ;)

What exactly should I give you credit for, and why?

The impracticality of light arrays has been reported and confirmed by a 
number of people who are long-time posters here. We can accept that they 
know what they're talking about. But in your case.. does anyone know who 
you are? I certainly don't remember seeing your name before this thread. 
If you want to challenge the notion that light arrays are impractical, 
you should provide such proof as is necessary to disprove everyone who 
has come before you.

> Now, by complex test, I don't mean a work of art, or anything pretending to
> be a "real" scene - by complex I mean very heavy duty in terms of what I was
> asking Povray to do. That includes both the scene and settings used for the
> render.

There's nothing particularly complex about the scene you described at 
all, *except* for the light array, which doesn't count!

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message