clipka wrote:

> and if  that functionality should still be desired, I'd personally prefer 
> the  keyword to fit into the "no_something" group, i.e. "no_photons".

I think pass_through was originally intended to be the photon
equivalent of "no_shadow" (considering the latter automatically
avtivates the first). If you think of this in the sense of light
(fakedly) passing through a solid (non-transparent) object it
certainly makes sense that transmit was ignored.

My guess would be that removing the undocumented clone photon
would have less impact on existing scenes than changing the
documented shadowing behavior.

But if it is changed as you suggested here, then I'd vote for
having "no_photons" as a replacement. Also, "pass_through" should
then be decoupled from "no_shadow" as they will no longer be
closely related. And I don't think "no_shadow" should imply
"no_photons" either, that just creates confusion.

BTW, another confusing aspect of pass_through is that it only
has an effect prior to hitting the photon target. At least for
a new no_photons keyword I'd suggest to make no distinction
there if technically possible.

Post a reply to this message