-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

nemesis wrote:
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22J=E9r=F4me_M=2E_Berger=22?= <jeb### [at] freefr> wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> It's the same for reflection:  no light_sources, no reflection.
>>>
>>  ?? Where did you see that? There is absolutely no relation between
>> light sources and reflections, and you *can* still get reflections
>> even if there are no light sources. Are you sure you didn't mean
>> "photons"?
> 
> no, I meant reflections:  if there are no light sources, reflections *shouldn't*
> be seen anywhere.  If there are no light rays, what is tracing the reflective
> images?
> 
	In that case, if there are no light rays, what is tracing the
image? You should see a pure black image, which obviously you don't.

> I remember lighting some test scene with pure radiosity and reflective materials
> and getting no reflections at all.  And it sounds ok to me.
> 
	I'd be really interested to see such a scene if you could make one,
but you can't (unless you use the "no_reflection" keyword of
course). I have made some test scenes with pure ambient lighting
(neither light sources nor radiosity) and reflective materials and
the reflections showed just fine.

		Jerome
- --
+------------------------- Jerome M. BERGER ---------------------+
|    mailto:jeb### [at] freefr      | ICQ:    238062172            |
|    http://jeberger.free.fr/     | Jabber: jeb### [at] jabberfr   |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------+
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD4DBQFHN2dyd0kWM4JG3k8RAmCCAJj5GTkkQpTA39rdwzvMLxXtOTGRAJ4nyAkL
Ctw88J9Eu65F1dkeLI0B0g==
=zDmA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Post a reply to this message