Severi Salminen wrote:

>>Just my thoughts on this. I think inheritance in this case is
>>a bad idea, especially if you combine it with 'target off'.
>>The properties of an object can then change with
>>the order in which the parts are added together.
> 
> 
> I didn't quite follow you. Can you give an example?
Well, if you have an object which is partly glass
and partly some opaque material and you add 'target off'
to the latter part. Will the resulting object collect photons
(because of the glass part that switches it on, and
it is inherited by the total object) or not because
of the 'target of' in the other part. Will always the
first declaration take precedence or the last (or
even a middle one).

> 
>>Photons as a material property makes sense, but that would
>>probably mean a large rewrite of the code (if even possible).
>>Also it may break existing code.
> 
> 
> You can be 99.99% sure that it will never be implemented in present POV-Ray.
> I believe it will be rewritten sooner or later anyway.
> 
may I add 0.01% percent to that? Without looking into the
code I do not want to bet if it ever will. As I said, I
feel that a material property may make more sense but
it would require a exhaustive search through and deep into
all the  objects to see whether there is any photon active
material in it. If that is feasible depends on the
datastructures (I guess).

    Andrel

Post a reply to this message