Warp schrieb:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Extending double_illuminate 
>> to accept float values would have been not so easy indeed, and would 
>> also have broken scenes where it's used just as a kludge to get rid of 
>> mesh artifacts.)
> 
>   Why would it have broken anything? A float parameter can be made
> optional, so if it isn't specified a default is used.

I soon found out that I also wanted the effect to apply to photons as 
well - and radiosity. The latter would have been devastating to any 
mesh-artifact-elimination use of double_illuminate in a mult-bounce 
radiosity scene, as this would have caused radiosity to carry 
illumination through the object's volume.

>   And btw, I think that the view that "double_illuminate is used as a kludge
> to get rid of mesh artifacts" is a bit simplistic of a view.

Well, it *is* used in this manner, isn't it? Whether the kludge was 
originally applied automatically, or was introduced for a totally 
different thing, doesn't change that fact. And I'd guess being the 
"official kludge" for getting rid of mesh artifacts, its use in this 
role is frequent enough to avoid breaking this use case.

>   Thus the approach you took with your patch is, in fact, the correct one:
> Keep 'double_illuminate' as the fix for smooth mesh artifacts, and instead
> create a better solution for back illumination.

I never said anything else :P

Post a reply to this message