Christopher James Huff wrote:

>>...is this correct?   It's what I'm observing and goes along with what I
>>think I understand of the normal process-- just want to see if there's a
>>trick to get around it.
> 
> 
> It doesn't negate normals, it just doesn't take them into account for 
> radiosity lighting. Using "normal on" in the radiosity block will cause 
> it to take the normals into account, giving slower but more accurate 
> results.

It is quite odd that they are turned off by default. I'd guess that 
people using normals would also like to see them regardless of the 
source of the light...

Severi S.

Post a reply to this message