|
 |
Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Severi Salminen wrote:
>
>> [...]
> But materials can't be targets, only objects can. The only way you can
> implement this is to make every object somehow 'inherit' the photon
> settings of its material. But this would not be obvious to the user so
> it will just cause confusion in most cases.
Materials can't be targets, true, but materials are allways assigned to
certain objects, so yes, objects should inherit the photon settings. I
thought this is obvious as there simply can't be an occurence of
material without an object it is assigned to. And the whole point was to
let material specify if an object needs photons. That is logical - same
way as you might assign CAUSTICS keyword to certain material.
>> The point is just to make it easier to link certain things together
>> with more freedom than now. Usually if someone has glass objects in a
>> scene it is most likely he wants them all to show photon caustics.
>
> Most likely not. For efficiency you will only use photons on those
> objects where the caustics are visible in the scene. Glass objects out
> of direct view that are only visible as reflections in other shapes for
> example will probably not use photons.
Why not? If the object itself is visible via reflection, then the
caustics might also be. And if the object is not visible at all, then,
why it exists at all? And actually this doesn't even matter: there are
scenes that would benefit from material specific photons and there are
scenes that would not. I don't see why implementing it would make things
worse as you don't _have to_ use it allways - except that it needs to be
implemented ;) It would simply make POV-SDL more versatile. But maybe
POV-SDL will someday evolve to a form where this can be done easily.
PS. When the computers get faster, the caustics keyword will definitely
be replaced by photon mapping (or some other technique) and it can be
used in all objects. "Efficiency" is a very subjective word...
SeveriS
Post a reply to this message
|
|
