Thomas de Groot wrote:
> "FlyerX" <fly### [at] yahoocom> schreef in bericht 
> news:4afc715e@news.povray.org...
>> I put the uv_mapping inside the pigment and normal for more control. As 
>> shown in the POV-Ray manual it can inside or outside of these statements. I 
>> did not notice a problem because I have not used textures with alpha 
>> channels in a very long time. Automatically putting uv_mapping outside the 
>> pigment and normal should not be a problem. Thanks for the suggestions.
> 
> Youa re welcome :-)
> 
>> The material structure has changed significantly in format in the latest 
>> PoseRay because it now supports specular and transparency mapping at the 
>> same time. Also I dropped the use of the predefined Clear pigment with 
>> transparency mapping since I was having problems with it. I replaced it by 
>> color rgbft<0,0,0,1,1>. I do not remember exactly the reason (I will have 
>> to review my notes) but I believe the transparency at the edges was not 
>> working well with Clear.
> 
> Ah yes. I think that I have noticed that as a side effect indeed.
> 
>> I will try to release a preliminary version of PoseRay this week since it 
>> has some of the many changes that were suggested in this forum plus other 
>> fixes.
> 
> Great! Looking forward to it!
> 
>> Below are samples of the new PoseRay-generated materials. They have the 
>> transformation at the end of each map. If any of you see anything wrong 
>> with them please let me know (besides the uv_mapping issue). Most likely I 
>> will have to define the textures before plugging them into the texture_map 
>> entries so that uv_mapping could be placed outside the pigment.
>>
>> pigment only:
>> http://mysite.verizon.net/sfg0000/files/p.txt
> 
> - I am not sure if a diffuse 1 is such a good idea. I prefer 0.6, or 0.8 
> when using an image map, like in the current version .
> - Why a *double* declare for the pigment? It seems to me that only one 
> should be enough, either PR_MAP_DIFFUSE or PF (well, I see some consistency 
> now with the other pigments)
> 
>> pigment only but multiplied by a color:
>> http://mysite.verizon.net/sfg0000/files/p_m.txt
> 
> - Neat! I like this. I believe that this will work much better than the 
> current, rather crude, texture layering.
> 
>> pigment+transparency:
>> http://mysite.verizon.net/sfg0000/files/p_t.txt
> 
> - OK. I see the change from Clear. Certainly works better.
> 
>> pigment+finish+normal+transparency:
>> http://mysite.verizon.net/sfg0000/files/p_n_f_t.txt
> 
> - This is a difficult one. I need to test this to see how it works. My first 
> impression is that it looks fine however.
> 
>> pigment+finish+normal:
>> http://mysite.verizon.net/sfg0000/files/p_n_f.txt
> 
> - Same as above.
> 
>> pigment+normal:
>> http://mysite.verizon.net/sfg0000/files/p_n.txt
> 
> - I think you put the wrong example file here. No normal visible.
> 
> 
> Looking good overall. I am thrilled!
> 
> Thomas
> 
> 
Fixed the pigment+normal sample. The double pigment comes from the color 
multiplication. To avoid extra coding I just left it as is in case the 
material has other layering. It is wasteful and I will look into 
cleaning that up.

FlyerX

Post a reply to this message