Lutz-Peter Hooge <lpv### [at] gmxde> wrote:

> When using reflection{0,1 fresnel} there is a reflection, 
> but I wasn't sure if the result of using the range 0...1
> would be the physical correct reflection, thats because I asked.

Ok, I searched the source files for 'fresnel' and found the
relevant part. If I understand it corrently 
'reflection{0,1 fresnel}' should indeed give the correct result.

However I discovered something that might be a bug:
The fresnel function used there seems to be the one that describes
how the energy splits up in the reflected/refracted part.
I'm not entirely sure, but I think the function for the intensitys
should be used instead...?

Lutz-Peter

Post a reply to this message