Zeger Knaepen schrieb:
> I would agree if you were argueing against *adding* functionality, but we're 
> talking about taking functionality *away*. And in that case I believe that 
> if even one person can think of a reason, even if only he/she understands 
> that reason, to use a particular function, and if changing the program to 
> remove that functionality doesn't give us anything else, anything better, in 
> return, then we're dealing with an "it ain't broke so don't fix it" 
> situation.

Among the things it would give us, there are:

- reduced memory footprint for texture objects
- reduced code complexity
- more consistent SDL syntax

The latter one being my main motivation for suggesting it.

My primary proposal is to re-parameterize the highlights. Collapsing the 
two features into a single one is more of a spin-off, but in case we'd 
do the syntax change anyway, I think it prudent to make the new syntax 
better than the old one in this respect, too: I'm quite sure using 
/both/ highlight modes is /not/ a standard use case.

> true, but like I said in my post: it's not because you or I can't think of a 
> reason, that no one else can.

That's why I'm putting it up for discussion (and arguing against any 
reasons I consider not really "hard").

> yes, but AFAIK every effect halo could produce, can also be done with media. 
> The opposite is not true.  So it's not a matter of taking functionality away 
> without adding anything better.  Your proposal is.

I would expect halo to have been living alongside media for a while, as 
with many other changes that affect compatibility. So in a sense, 
ultimately removing halo from POV-Ray would have been taking 
functionality away without adding anything better, too.

Similar things have also happened with assumed_gamma, which is being 
restricted in the 3.7 to be set to either 1.0 or 2.2, but no interim 
values, and be phased out altogether, making that feature unavailable 
for artistic purposes.

Likewise, collapsing both highlight models into one would remove a 
redundant feature apparently of use only for artistic purposes; and 
other than assumed_gamma, in this case there even appears to be an easy 
ways to go around it.

> I think your idea is more something for POV-Ray 4,

I've come to the conclusion that the parameterization of highlights 
sucks - among others, it's in the way of getting stuff like radiosity 
and subsurface scattering right. So I would preferably want it changed 
way before 4.x comes out.

And if the syntax would be changed anyway, I'd suggest going the whole 
way and collapsing the two features into one.

> (why, btw, isn't layering of patterned textures allowed in POV3.6?)

Because with the POV-Ray 3.x architecture, it would appear to open up 
some cans of worms regarding getting the behavior consistent, I think. 
Never did an in-depth analysis of that issue yet though. But I agree it 
does suck at times.

Post a reply to this message