Warp schrieb:

>   You fail to explain why does it matter if the user has no full knowledge
> of the internal details of radiosity.
> 
>   Most users don't know the exact formula to calculate, for example,
> the 'granite' pattern. That doesn't stop then from using that pattern
> effectively.

Say, just how many parameters does the "granite" pattern have for 
performance tuning?

Post a reply to this message

Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> The SDL is - due to the repeating addition of new features - 
> inconsistent in many parts.  Some aspects of this have been mentioned in 
> this thread, others have not.  Using the photons syntax is not 
> necessarily a better idea than the no_* syntax

  I would like to make it clear that I didn't suggest a block syntax for
radiosity settings because photon settings have that too, or because I thought
that radiosity was similar to photons. In fact, I wasn't thinking about the
photon mapping feature at all when I made the suggestion. It was only later
in the thread that I came up with the comparison with photon mapping.

  The basic idea was to use a block syntax to group different radiosity
settings consistently and clearly. The photon settings are a good example
of this (but, as I said, not the reason why I suggested it in the first
place).

  If there was one single per-object radiosity setting, then "no_radiosity"
would be ok. However, there are already two, and it isn't completely
unthinkable that in the future perhaps more will be added. Thus it would
be a good idea to take that into account now, when it's still possible.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> > Thorsten Froehlich schrieb:
>> >> Compatibility to MegaPOV should be of *no* concern when porting a 
>> >> patch or feature over to official POV-Ray. Consistency and avoiding 
>> >> new keywords when reasonable should be the primary conditions for 
>> >> syntax decisions.
>> >>
>> >>     Thorsten, POV-Team
> > 
> > Though I generally consider this a reasonable position, in this 
> > particular case there was a reason for the MegaPOV patch to use this 
> > particular syntax and not a different one, touching one of the very 
> > points mentioned: Consistency, in this case with the other 
> > "no_something" keywords.

Most of wich actually ended in POV-Ray due to previous smaller MegaPOV 
patches being applied without enough thought (in part my fault there, of 
course). Much better than a "no_something" would be a "something [on]" 
as default and users then using "something off".

> > - and with the syntax "radiosity off" already being in use for another 
> > very different feature.

But not a 3.6 feature, and in the beta it can be changed, and should be 
changed if it turns out to be unsuitable.

> > Plus, as already mentioned, sacrificing the opportunity to use a syntax 
> > already familiar to the users of a very famous POV-Ray patch - which of 
> > course would not be sufficient alone, but I think it quite well rounds 
> > off the whole thing.

Well, I have to admit I prefer Warp's suggestion to keep this in a 
radiosity block per object similar to interior, media, photons, etc.

	Thorsten

Post a reply to this message

Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
> Well, I have to admit I prefer Warp's suggestion to keep this in a 
> radiosity block per object similar to interior, media, photons, etc.

  I don't know if it's a good idea, but one possible compromise is to keep
the "no_radiosity" keyword as it is now, and add everything else to a
"radiosity {}" block.

  But maybe that introduces a logical inconsistency.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message