 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Just thought I would put some of my ideas for POV-Ray 3.5 down, any
suggestions? Have the final features of this version been decided yet?
Definitely needs a double_illuminate keyword, so you can make both sides
of a surface be illuminated.
There should be an internal_reflection keyword, to toggle whether the
inside of an object reflects. This could be used with a clipped plane to
make one-way mirrors.
The unlimited light option would be nice, as I understand it, this light
won't fade when it passes through media, but will still interact with
it.
And of course, angle dependant reflection(maybe refraction too?),
blurred reflection and refraction, and even though I have heard it is
not planned, Photon Mapping! It should probably only be added as an
"experimental feature" like atmosphere and halo were.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I would like to see a 'highlightless' keyword so that you could type:
light_source
{ <10,20,30> rgb 1
shadowless
highlightless off
}
This way you could make shadowless lights which cause highlights on
objects. You could also make regulars lights which don't cause highligths:
light_source
{ <10,20,30> rgb 1
highlightless
}
but I think that the latter is not so useful as the first one.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28 May 1999 11:20:34 -0500, Nieminen Mika wrote:
> I would like to see a 'highlightless' keyword so that you could type:
May I suggest that the keyword be "highlight" instead of "highlightless"?
I think it's easier to wrap your brain around "highlight on" than the
equivalent "highlightless off"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
How about phongless? :)
-mike
Ron Parker wrote:
> On 28 May 1999 11:20:34 -0500, Nieminen Mika wrote:
> > I would like to see a 'highlightless' keyword so that you could type:
>
> May I suggest that the keyword be "highlight" instead of "highlightless"?
> I think it's easier to wrap your brain around "highlight on" than the
> equivalent "highlightless off"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike wrote:
>
> How about phongless? :)
>
> -mike
What if it has metallic or specular highlighting ?
Would this keyword also affect the way reflection is calculated ?
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Definitely needs a double_illuminate keyword, so you can make both sides
> of a surface be illuminated.
>
Personally, I'd rather have it handled differently. Since the idea, to my
way of thinking, is to simulate translucency, it would be better to have a
more thorough treatment of it. Both color_maps and image_maps should be
available to adjust the amount illumination that shows through and also
effect the coloration.
And since we're on wish lists, I'd really like to see some improvements to
bicubic patch. The most important one is to do away with u and v steps and
handle the subdivision based on the output resolution. This is the only way
I know of to insure perfect results.
These things are on my to-do list if I can find time 'to do' them.
-Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Huff wrote:
>
> Just thought I would put some of my ideas for POV-Ray 3.5 down, any
> suggestions? Have the final features of this version been decided yet?
> The unlimited light option would be nice, as I understand it, this light
> won't fade when it passes through media, but will still interact with
> it.
Add to the media features wish list a selectable sampling method that
can or will produce smoother media with improved speed results. I can
dream can't I ?
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well translucency is a great idea(one I had thought of and forgot), but
I still think having control of double-illumination would be good. Both
of them, not either-or.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken asks:
> I can
> dream can't I ?
>
Well in that case I want a reality_dream setting that when it's value is
above zero it gives that nice, soft, fuzzy around the edges wavering that
dreams have and when the value is below zero it has the black iron claws
that seem to reach for me out of every shadow.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill DeWitt wrote:
>
> Ken asks:
> > I can
> > dream can't I ?
> >
>
> Well in that case I want a reality_dream setting that when it's value is
> above zero it gives that nice, soft, fuzzy around the edges wavering that
> dreams have and when the value is below zero it has the black iron claws
> that seem to reach for me out of every shadow.
Well it was made as a serious comment that I believe is echoed by many but
if it helps you achieve this in your work as a side effect then I am for
that too.
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
