clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Warp schrieb:
> > 
> >   I see radiosity being more akin to photon mapping than to things like
> > no_image and no_reflection.

> Um... no.

> Radiosity is actually just cached diffuse reflections, nothing else. 
> It's the forward-raytracing component that places photon mapping 
> seriously off the grid.

  It doesn't matter how radiosity is implemented internally. From the syntax
point of view the important thing is how the user perceives it.

> There is no such thing as a "collect on|off" or "emission on|off" in the 
> specular (inter-)reflection block, so why should there be such a thing 
> for diffuse interreflection?

  Because radiosity settings are a whole lot more complicated than some
specular settings and thus deserve their own block, just like photons.

> >   Just because an unofficial patch has made poor choices in syntax doesn't
> > mean those same poor choices must be replicated in the official version.

> It isn't a poor choice from my seat, for the reasons already explained, 
> and in that light I do think that the syntax of a well-established 
> unfficial patch should be favored over an otherwise equally good but 
> newly invented syntax.

  It is a very poor choice. Do you know why? Because it's rigid and hard
to expand.

  If in the future support for new per-object radiosity settings is added,
what are you going to do? Add new keywords to be used in the main object
definition?

  The advantage of using a per-object "radiosity {}" block now is that in
the future it will be much easier to add new features to it.

  "Well-established" means absolutely nothing if it's a poor choice. It makes
no sense to deliberately drag bad choices.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message