In article <44a5cb76$1@news.povray.org>, ele### [at] netscapenet 
says...
> Patrick Elliott nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 30/06/2006 16:59:
> > In article <44a46aca$1@news.povray.org>, ele### [at] netscapenet 
> > says...
> >> Patrick Elliott nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 29/06/2006 16:22:
> >>
> >> Why don't you use parallel in the light's description? It makes all th
e rays of light effectively 
> >> parallel, thus simulating a light source that is situated at "infinity
".
> >> light_source{Location, Colour parallel point_at PointAt}
> >>
> > Umm. Other than not realizing that existed... lol Still, you might be
 
> > able to do a lot more with my concept, for example, a point source is a
) 
> > not an accurate presentation of the sun, b) not sized right and c) 
> > doesn't add any light from the sky itself. What I was thinking in terms
 
> > of was a light that could be made to have a bright center, a quick fall
 
> > off near its edge, but the rest of the sky still "bright" from it, 
> > though faded towards the far edges of the horizon. The theory being tha
t 
> > for some cases, this might give more control over what it actually 
> > produces. As things currently stand, any light will tend to effect a 
> > sky_sphere more or less equally across its entire surface, which it 
> > seems to me isn't quite right.
> NO! sky_sphere is a "background" feature, not a proper object.
> It don't react to light, it's like an object with: finish{ambient 1 diffu
se 0}
> > 
> > Anyway, it was just an idea. I think it could be used to do some 
> > interesting stuff, maybe.
> > 
> A parallel light can also be an area_light or a spot_light. It can also b
e projected_through some 
> object. You should read the documentations about light_source, completely
: 3.4.7  Light Sources
> If you want the sky/sky_sphere to contribute to the overall lighting, you
 should use radiosity. 
> Another option is to use a shadowless fill light.
> Have a sky_sphere, or a realy large "world sphere" with a pattern that ma
tch what you want and use 
> radiosity. Please read: 3.3.4  Radiosity
> 
Yeah, I know you can use Radiosity. I was thinking in terms of what 
might work "without" that. And yeah, there are a mess of other 
solutions, they are have serious limitations. For example, a bloody area 
light **won't** do what I am talking about. A spotlight gets closer, but 
its still not doing what I am talking about. Fill lights are just a 
cludge. They work, but they are hardly going to produce the same result.

Why is it that whenever someone has an idea, instead of someone saying, 
"That's interesting.", and *maybe* trying it out, all you get is an 
endless list of reasons and tricks to avoid trying it? Not that I am 
saying someone should, if its a totally stupid idea, but the endless 
parade of, "Well, if you mix 15 other things together, it might come 
close.", just bugs the hell out of me. The only thing worse imho, is 
with another program I use where I **know** I am right, but there have 
been 3-4 cludges added in to "fix" a problem that has never been 
correctly fixed, because the developer a) doesn't the time, b) doesn't 
have the knowledge and c) doesn't have an incentive, to include the 
"correct" solution. To be clear, I *do not* think my idea in the case of 
POV-Ray is a correct solution, just an interesting idea, but the 
philosophy involved with examining it seems to be the same. "Why try 
something that "might" produce interesting results if you have a dozen 
complicated, more difficult to use and incomplete solutions that can be 
clued together for a similar result?"

Sorry, in a bit of a bad mood today, but I think my point is valid. 
Seems like some idea no one even wants to try to consider, never mind 
try in actual fact. I don't see the gaping hole in mine that means it 
wouldn't be useful or possibly better than some existing solutions. 
Especially since some stuff, like placing clouds on a sky_sphere, 
currently means 'no interaction with light' at all, while a sky_sphere 
that can act as a light "could". That in and of itself would improve how 
some things work, without the overhead, for those with some sort of 
deadline, of having to fiddle with media for hours or other complicated 
textures and objects, to produce the same.

-- 
void main () {

    call functional_code()
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

Post a reply to this message