clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Warp schrieb:
> >> I think your assertion that radiosity would work just about the same as 
> >> photons makes clear enough how. Radiosity is /not/ photon mapping, and 
> >> it is /very/ different. Both use a cache, but that's all - even the 
> >> structure of the cache differs extremely.
> > 
> >   I'm talking about the user's point of view (which seems something you
> > are unable to grasp). It doesn't matter how different the implementation
> > is inside the source code.

> But that's exactly the point I'm trying to make: The user's perception 
> of radiosity is somewhat skewed in general, and using photon-alike 
> keywords would really not improve that situation at all.

  You fail to explain why does it matter if the user has no full knowledge
of the internal details of radiosity.

  Most users don't know the exact formula to calculate, for example,
the 'granite' pattern. That doesn't stop then from using that pattern
effectively.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message