 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
stbenge wrote:
> It would be cool if you could change a certain value for the pattern.
> Something like "reference = some vector" to change where the pattern
> "points" to, if that's possible
But the aoi pattern supports this already??? From
the MegaPOV reference: "pigment { aoi [ POINT ] ...}".
Of course, if you specify the point it is not really
an "angle of incidence" for the incoming ray, so the
direction remains fixed even for reflected rays.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> However, angle-of-incidence is *by definition* a view-dependent pattern.
> In other words, it changes depending on where the object is looked from.
> That's the very definition of "angle of incidence".
Yes, for the version without a fixed point I'd expect that too,
but you can also specify a reference point which is then related to
the geometry similar to slope. Anyway it would have to be optional
for compatibility with 3.6 (slope) and MegaPOV (aoi). Maybe reuse
the transform keyword: pigment {aoi <5,5,5> transform ...} to
indicate the pattern should be affected by transformations,
only valid for slope and aoi.
Regarding the implementation, I had another look at it and it may
not be so terrible after all: Both the incident ray direction (aoi)
and the surface normal (slope) are already passed to Evaluate_TPat
via the intersection object (although untransformed), and the
information about the transformation should be contained in the
TPATTERN* if I read it correctly, so only local changes in the
pattern function should be required to warp the vectors.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:17:16 -0400 schrieb Warp:
>
> However, angle-of-incidence is *by definition* a view-dependent
> pattern.
> In other words, it changes depending on where the object is looked from.
> That's the very definition of "angle of incidence".
>
> Thus I would expect for it to work always the same way regardless of
> how the object is transformed. In other words, I expect it to solely
> depend on the viewing direction (with respect to the normal of the
> surface), not the orientation of the object.
Because of this I would expect angle-of-incidence-depenedent shading to
reside in a finish block rather than being a pattern.
Just my 2 euro-cents...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Carlo C." <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> > I'd absolutely like to see it! Thank-you again for the work.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Edouard.
>
> Yes.
> *Clipka, where are you?* :-)
Here! Wazzup?
Pure surprise that there's a thread I haven't yet posted to? :P
I hope you don't expect me to do *all* the work on POV 3.7 - if the code already
exists, there's basically no reason for *me* to get involved. Just contact Chris
Cason about it - becoming a code contributor is actually quite easy ;) (*hint!*)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lukas Winter wrote:
> Because of this I would expect angle-of-incidence-depenedent shading to
> reside in a finish block rather than being a pattern.
Although physically more reasonable, the pattern approach
probably gives more freedom, just see Edouards sample scene
for variable blurring based on aoi. Also, compatibility
with scenes designed for MegaPOV may be helpful.
Actually you've made me think about possible (mis)uses of other
finishy properties for patterns. Hmmm, diffuse lighting strength
pattern, reflection pattern (distance?), highlight pattern ... ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Christian Froeschlin" <chr### [at] chrfr de> schreef in bericht
news:49e4f910$1@news.povray.org...
> 1. Is there interest to include this in 3.7?
>
Absolutely! Yes! Thank you indeed!
(...I would like to see the very useful motion blur included too...)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> I hope you don't expect me to do *all* the work on POV 3.7
almost_all ? :-D
Ok, we are of one mind.
Well, I hope that Christian has no difficulty to contacting Chris Cason.
--
Carlo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Carlo C. wrote:
> Well, I hope that Christian has no difficulty to contacting Chris Cason.
Yes, well, I thought the preferred method of contact was
posting here anyway so I give the team some time to react
before pestering by mail. Nullus anxietas ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christian Froeschlin <chr### [at] chrfrde> wrote:
> > Well, I hope that Christian has no difficulty to contacting Chris Cason.
>
> Yes, well, I thought the preferred method of contact was
> posting here anyway so I give the team some time to react
> before pestering by mail. Nullus anxietas ;)
I think you better go ahead and contact Chris directly. Or try contacting him
via a post with a clear topic to catch his attention. He may not be reading
each and every post.
To my knowledge, the newsgroups are the preferred method of contact only to
avoid publishing e-mail addresses.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I think you better go ahead and contact Chris directly. Or try contacting him
> via a post with a clear topic to catch his attention. He may not be reading
> each and every post.
I managed to contact Chris and he thinks it can be
included. I just sent him the modified files, so let's
wait and see how it works out ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
