Op 13/04/2021 om 21:00 schreef Bald Eagle:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> 
>> I changed every <0.000, 0.000, 0.000> to <0.004, 0.004, 0.004> (which
>> corresponds to 1/256)
> 
> Thank you, Sir.
> 
> I am playing a bit with the macro thing and a simple demo scene, and I will post
> both as soon as it's far enough along to warrant some code pong.
> 

Good! I think the macro suggestion is the way to go. Might become quite 
complex...

> Perhaps you can guide me a bit in crafting a prototype texture since you're
> likely better/more knowledgeable than I.  After briefly going through your code,
> I like what I see so far.
> Some small observations:
> You have some #declares in your macros where you should probably use #locals.
> Maybe use some underscores or GraniteInc_ prefixes to construct a unique
> namespace that won't potentially clash with a user's scene file declares.
> 

I shall look into that.


> I'm using the "Mahogany (sp) granite - polished surface" as a starting point,
> and I'm noticing a few things:
> 
> we have       diffuse 0.6      specular 0.9
> Which adds up to over 1.0   Is this proper?   Should the sum never exceed unity?
> 
I did not go too deep into the original code, but you are right I think; 
I need to look up my notes on this. There is also a comment in one of 
the Clipka Voodoo's which talks about diffuse values in a srgb 
environment...

> (it would be nice if we had some dot-notation type stuff to work with, but it
> would be a CSG-tree type nightmare)
> 
> This is a layered texture, but both texture have finish blocks.  Should there
> only be a single finish block for the whole object?

Something I wondered about too. My gut feeling is that only one finish 
should be used.

> What about sslt and interior {ior} ?

I don't think that those are to be used with granites. It would not add 
anything imo.


> There is also the issue of scale.
> "The granite patterns have been scaled in such a way that, when applied to a
> unit-sized POV-Ray object, they correspond most closely to the real world
> examples from which they have been modeled. (sp)"
> 
> and for sslt we have:
> "The mm_per_unit algorithm is designed to give realistic results at a scale of
> 10 mm per POV-Ray unit by default"
> 
> So we may have some things to think about there, so that everything is playing
> together in harmony, without too much mucking about by inexperienced users.
> 

Indeed. Note however that the scale of the texture is rather arbitrary 
and open to change by the user. I felt I had to provide something at 
least visually "correct".

> 
> With more complex textures using ior, sslt, and layered textures, should we have
> a full texture_map mechanism, or material_map rather than color_map?
> 
Maybe, and depending on "complexity". Personally, I would prefer the 
texture_map/material_map structure indeed.

> 
> Thanks!   :)
> 

<grin>

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message