On 9-11-2017 19:02, Stephen wrote:
> On 09/11/2017 16:39, Kenneth wrote:
>> Hmm, time to protest!! "I demand ladies in black leather!".
> 
> You and me too. ;-)
> 

I agree. This is pure gender discrimination!  ;-)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 9-11-2017 15:40, Bald Eagle wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> 
>> Uh... and what exactly would "not cast shadows" do, if not make the
>> object "transparent to the light [directly from light sources]"?
> 
> I wasn't gonna say it....   :|
> 
> 
> 

Making my brain cells work a little harder than they normally do, I came 
to the same conclusion ;-)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

dick balaska <dic### [at] buckosoftcom> wrote:

> If they were being shot, or hacked up, that'd be ok.  But just standing
> there looking good? My sensitive eyes!

Maybe it's just me, but I can read that in several ways.

"Maybe if that were a B-rated hack and slash video, I'd be into it - but just
plain old hot chicks in leather?"

:D

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 9-11-2017 13:46, clipka wrote:

> >
> > Uh... and what exactly would "not cast shadows" do, if not make the
> > object "transparent to the light [directly from light sources]"?
> >
>
> Well, my thoughts did not go into that direction to tell the truth. Just
> no shadows, without implications.
>

I'm actually with Thomas on this one-- and not just to be argumentative ;-)

In its strictest sense, no_shadow implies only what it says (IMO), because the
object (the wall) is still *visually* OPAGUE. The fact that no_shadow also
allows light to pass *through* the wall-- as if it's invisible to the light--
seems to me to be a 'secondary effect', not necessarily implied by the meaning
of no_shadow-- and might well be an unexpected effect for new users.

When I started my make my test code example, *I* actually didn't realize (or
remember) the 'dual nature' of that keyword, and didn't even try adding it to
the wall as the first step(!). Instead, I went off on a tangent, coming up with
the (unnecessary!) light_group idea first, to figure out a way to get the light
to strike my sphere object through the 'opague' wall! :-0

The documentation says "You may specify the no_shadow keyword in an object to
make that object cast no shadow. This is useful for special effects and for
creating the illusion that a light source actually is visible"-- then it refers
to the looks_light object in a light. The latter part of that sentence might
actually makes little sense to a new user, unless he/she is already familiar
with what a looks_like object is. (But no_shadow is no longer required there
anyway, as a looks_like object already has an implied no_shadow keyword.)

Since both Thomas and I both failed to initially grasp no_shadow's full meaning,
I imagine there may be others as well...

My two cents :-)

Post a reply to this message

Alain <kua### [at] videotronca> wrote:

>
> Any object in a light_group will always cast shadows for any light in
> the scene. The light in the light_group can also get shadowed by any
> object outside the light_group.
>
> The light(s) in a light_group can only illuminate objects that are part
> of the same light_group.
> The objects of the group don't receive illumination from lights outside
> of the group unless you add "global_lights on" to the group.

As it turns out, my light_group wasn't needed anyway!

But I was also 'over-thinking' Thomas's original example-- guessing that his
wall was actually part of a much bigger scene, requiring the wall to *cast*
shadows onto other objects (but not onto his single specific object.)

Years ago, I made a REALLY complex scene like that, requiring no_shadow for some
of the objects, and had to figure out a way to get shadows to fall onto the rest
of the scene. If I recall, I had to use multiple (or even nested) light_groups.

In any case, my test code here probably confused things. :-(

Post a reply to this message

On 11/08/2017 03:29 PM, Alain wrote:
> Le 17-11-08 à 08:27, William F Pokorny a écrit :
> 
> The object in a projected_through is NEVER visible. It never cast 
> shadow, is never seen in reflections nor refractions, and don't affect 
> radiosity. Ity's just a kind or portail through the light comes.
> 

Good point. Where a projected_through object is not otherwise used in 
the scene, it's only a light portal.

Bill P.

Post a reply to this message

"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> > On 9-11-2017 13:46, clipka wrote:
> > >
> > > Uh... and what exactly would "not cast shadows" do, if not make the
> > > object "transparent to the light [directly from light sources]"?
> > >
> >
> > Well, my thoughts did not go into that direction to tell the truth. Just
> > no shadows, without implications.
> >
>
> I'm actually with Thomas on this one-- and not just to be argumentative ;-)
>
> In its strictest sense, no_shadow implies only what it says (IMO), [blah,blah]

Well, a lightbulb finally went off in my brain, so please forget my silly
argument.

If the wall object (with no_shadow) casts no shadow from a light, then what is
supposed to fill that no-longer-existing 'shadow area'? The light, of course.
Otherwise, there would be an illogical 'void' in that area, filled with...
what??  ;-)

Duh. It took me 'only' ten days to realize this... :-[

Post a reply to this message

On 23-11-2017 0:34, Kenneth wrote:
> "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>>> On 9-11-2017 13:46, clipka wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Uh... and what exactly would "not cast shadows" do, if not make the
>>>> object "transparent to the light [directly from light sources]"?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, my thoughts did not go into that direction to tell the truth. Just
>>> no shadows, without implications.
>>>
>>
>> I'm actually with Thomas on this one-- and not just to be argumentative ;-)
>>
>> In its strictest sense, no_shadow implies only what it says (IMO), [blah,blah]
> 
> Well, a lightbulb finally went off in my brain, so please forget my silly
> argument.
> 
> If the wall object (with no_shadow) casts no shadow from a light, then what is
> supposed to fill that no-longer-existing 'shadow area'? The light, of course.
> Otherwise, there would be an illogical 'void' in that area, filled with...
> what??  ;-)
> 
> Duh. It took me 'only' ten days to realize this... :-[
> 

LOL
I am still pondering the issue; higher dimension bypasses. :-)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 23/11/2017 07:53, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> I am still pondering the issue; higher dimension bypasses. :-)

That's the way it is looking to me. ;-)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:


> I am still pondering the issue; higher dimension bypasses. :-)

Well of course.
It's a bypass!  Gotta build bypasses...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNmIQX_ImgM

Post a reply to this message