> That's completely right, but you have to take care not to reject a
> solution just *because* it is realistic.

I wasn't rejecting them for being accurate, but for being near to impossible
to implement in the model I've built so far. I thought that my replies made
clear that I wasn't rejecting the physical properties, but the solutions
presented weren't fitting to my model. I tried to explain why it wouldn't
work, but I guess I've failed. Maybe we've talked alongside each other and
were interpreting too much or too little what the other was saying. Lets
just settle it with "my simulation isn't realistic, just looks like it, so
real-life formulas can't always be applied", okay? ;-)

> BTW the "it does not have to be realistic, it just has to look nice" vs.
> "if it is realistic it will look correct as well" is a very old conflict
> in CG.  But in the end it often boils down to a
> physically/mathematically correct solution - if implemented efficiently
> - also being the most useful one and the best intuitive solutions also
> being physically quite accurate.

It depends on what you're after. If you want something versatile and
intuitive, then sure, by all means, make it realistic and efficient. If you
just want one certain effect, do it quick and dirty. :-)


-- 
"Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>
Email: tim.nikias (@) nolights.de

Post a reply to this message