Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> I don't think so.  You're talking about a new lighting model, something
> that drastically effects the final image.

  You mean UV-mapping doesn't drastically effect the final image?

>  If such a lighting model is
> usable with only one type of primitive, then any scenes wishing to use
> it will be forced to use only that primitive.

  What do you mean "forced to use only that primitive"? What would force
them to do so? I don't see any reason why other primitives couldn't be
used as well. It's just that the radiosity will not be calculated for the
other primitives, but I see no reason why they cannot be used. It's simply
that the other primitives will have to be illuminated by conventional means.

  And besides, so what if the radiosity only affects meshes? As I said,
creating entire scenes with meshes is completely normal, and in most
renderers the *only* thing they support. If you download free objects or
entire scenes out there, made with some modeller, guess which format they
use.

> In other words, I would be forced to use only meshes if I want the new
> lighting model.

  1) Who forces you?

  2) So what? You could say the same about UV-mapping. Does that bother you?

> >   If you search for models out there, they will invariably be in
> > triangle mesh format.

> When made by other programs, that is.

> Search for items made in POV, and triangle meshes are rather uncommon.

  Guess how many objects/scenes out there can you find which are made
in other programs, compared to how many of them will be made with POV-Ray.

> >   A box is in no way so versatile all on its own. You can't use boxes
> > only in order to seriously create any scene.

> Sure you could, if the tools were written to generate boxes instead of
> triangles.  It wouldn't even be that much harder.

  Now you are nitpicking, and you know it.

> >   And it's not like there would be no precedent. For example, even
> > though UV-mapping cannot be applied to all POV-Ray primitives, that
> didn't
> > stop people from implementing it in POV-Ray.

> That's because if I use UV-mapping, I'm not prohibited from using a
> sphere right next to the mesh.

  And what exactly what prohibit you from using a sphere right next to
the mesh if radiosity was used?

> If it were something as trivial as UV mapping, I'd say go for it.  But
> for something as *global* as the lighting model, I think it needs to
> apply to all POV primitives for it to be workable.

  So because radiosity can only be applied to meshes, we must not offer
this tool to anyone who could find it useful.

  I'm sorry, but that's just stupid.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message