Am 09.05.2019 um 20:51 schrieb William F Pokorny:

> but I think the right thing to do is probably to change the 
> ray.IsImageRay() definition in ray.h from:
> 
>   bool IsImageRay() const { return primaryRay || (refractionRay && 
> !reflectionRay && !radiosityRay); }
> 
> to:
> 
> bool IsImageRay() const { return (primaryRay && !photonRay) || 
> (refractionRay && !reflectionRay && !photonRay && !radiosityRay); }
> 
> or suppose some photon code specific precond a possibility too. My guess 
> at the moment is that this 3.6 to 3.7 change was not intentional.
> 
> Christoph?

I need to examine this closer. The ray conditions have proven to be a 
tricky business before (which is probably also why this change slipped 
in there in the first place; I'm pretty sure it is unintentional indeed).

Can someone submit a GitHub issue for this?

Post a reply to this message