Am 20.02.2011 21:16, schrieb Robert McGregor:
>
> * Will radiosity work okay with it? I get lots of blocky artifacts with SSLT and
> radiosity in the current implementation.

I'm not sure - that depends on what you're seeing. I found and 
eliminated a bug in the code that kind of "shattered" a surface 
according to which component of the surface normal was smallest. Other 
than that, I'm not aware of any problems with combining radiosity & SSLT 
(except that SSLT-enabled objects currently don't actually use the 
radiosity code, but an inferior substitute).

> * Will we be able to set a scattering color that's different than the specified
> pigment?

Yup - the sample images actually do use this, being more translucent for 
reds and oranges (giving them the brownish hue seen in the backlit 
scene). However, the effect of different translucency settings is not as 
straightforward as the effect of the pigment (as can be seen on the 
rightmost bead in the examples, in which the reddening effect is less 
present).

Also note that if you want an object to appear as if coated with a 
different color, you'll still need to layer textures.

> * Does this new version still use the scattering/absorbing coefficients and
> mm_per_unit?

No - the current parameterization will cease to be supported. For the 
new syntax, see the sample code I posted with the first image.

The mm_per_unit setting will still be required though, as the 
"translucency" parameter value is specified in mm instead of POV-Ray 
units, so that the same material can be used regardless of scene scale.

> Regardless, really looking forward to trying it - thanks for your hard work!

Heh - thank /you/ people for encouraging me to pick up that work again :-)

Post a reply to this message