Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> >   If you want the sphere to have the same lighting as the mesh, then
> > use
> > a mesh instead of a sphere.

> Warp, that statement makes my point.

  Which I disagree with. *My* point is that a lighting model which applies
only to meshes can be useful given how common mesh-based scenes are
(especially when importing from other modellers/renderers to POV-Ray).

  The counter-argument seems to be that since the algorithm can only be
applied to meshes, it should not be provided *at all* (even though providing
it wouldn't hurt anyone). I find this reasoning incomprehensible. In the
exact same way you could argue that UV-mapping should not be provided
because it cannot be applied to all primitives. It makes the exact same
amount of sense.

  If you don't like UV-mapping because it cannot be applied to everything
then the solution is rather simple: Don't use UV-mapping. Likewise if you
don't like radiosity because it can only be applied to meshes, the same
solution applies: Don't use it. Nobody gets hurt.

  However, depriving people who *could* find it useful from the tool
doesn't make sense.

> I think we're operating under different assumptions here.  I'm under the
> impression that a scene would look best when the entire scene uses the
> same lighting model.

  Have you ever heard of light groups?

  The entire scene being lighted in the exact same way is in no way a
prerequisite. On the contrary, sometimes you even *want* some parts not
being illuminated in the same way as the others. That's why light groups
were introduced in the first place.

  Not that this has anything to do with radiosity+meshes. I just wanted
to point out that your argument that a lighting model *must* apply to all
possible primitives or else it's useless does not necessarily hold true.

> You're saying that different parts of the scene can use different
> lighting models.

  Of course they can. I don't see the problem. Light groups already provide
a way of achieving that.

> While technically you are correct, the results do *not* look good.

  Then don't use the proposed radiosity (assuming it was actually
implemented). It's that simple.

> Now, if you're *trying* to make a scene that looks fake and horrible,
> then by all means go ahead.  Most of us here don't want that.

  Another alternative is to make the entire scene with triangle meshes
and have superb, fast and viewpoint-independent global illumination.
You want to deprive people from having that?

> And as far as triangle meshes go, I think it would be a good thing for
> POV to support them (it currently doesn't, you know, unless you run it
> through a converter anyway)

  I think you are trying to say something else than what you wrote there,
but I'm not sure what.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message