Warp schrieb:
> 
>   Compare the situation to how it would be with photons. What is clearer and
> less confusing, this:
> 
>     photons off
>     no_photons
> 
> or this:
> 
>     photons { collect off }
>     photons { pass_through }

Ut is moot to argue about which would be clearer, because the latter is 
how it /is/, and it is /ok/.

>   You are basically advocating the former, for the sole reason that someone
> made the poor choice of using that syntax in megapov.

Argain, you're oversimplifying my actions and motivations:

- I'm obviously /not/ advocating the former, because that's photon stuff 
and we're discussing radiosity stuff.

- I'm /not/ simply advocating "no_radiosity" either - I'm instead 
advocating to /keep/ it as it is.

- Your statement fails to acknowledge that the I've presented /more/ 
arguments than just "it's done that way in megapov". You may not /agree/ 
with them, but they /are/ additional reasons.


I /am/ advocating to /keep/ "no_radiosity" as it /is/ implemented (in 
genuine POV-Ray!) right now, for the simple reason of /lack of a better/ 
solution.

And no, I will /not/ acknowledge "radiosity { collect no|off emit on|off 
}" as a good solution: Both terms are purely technical ones, that make 
sense in the context of photon mapping alone, and only for someone who 
knows how photon mapping works - outside of that domain they're just 
plain nonsense (in real life, if I heard something about an object 
"collecting" photons, I would probably think of phosphorescence or the 
like). And in the context of radiosity they make no sense either - worse 
yet, they may lead to wrong assumptions about how radiosity works (there 
exist enough such wrong assumptions already), implying that there would 
be any similarity with photon mapping.

Post a reply to this message