SharkD nous illumina en ce 2008-12-06 12:46 -->
> Couple of questions regarding the looks_like statement:
> 
> 1) If I use the looks_like statement, do I need to display the object
> separately, or is it enough to simply define the object within the statement
> itself?

It can be prior defined by a #declare or #local or completely contained within 
the light_source definition.

You don't need to display the object anywhere outside of the light_source itself.

> 
> 2) Do I need to specify absolute coordinates within the scene for both the
> object and the light source, or just for one? I.e., if the light source is
> located at <3,2,5>, then do I need to translate both the light source and the
> object to these coordinates?

The object is always located relative to the light_source. The <0,0,0> of the 
object is the location of the light_source. So, you must NOT use some absolute 
scene coordinate for your looks_like object.
You can assume that the object is created at the origin and translated to the 
light's location.

Whenever you apply ANY transformation the the light_source, it will be applyed 
to the looks_like object. So, the object will be translated, rotated or scalled 
with the light_source.

> 
> Thanks!
> 
> -Mike
> 
> 

Note also that:
That object is automaticaly made no_shadow. So, it won't cast any shadow, even 
if lighted by another light_source.

If you want it to have opaque parts, or cast shadows relative to some other 
light_source, you'll need to use an usion of the object and the light_source and 
make sure that your object does have some transparent parts or openings so that 
the light can get out.

You can then scale, rotate and translate that union as needed.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
   My wife's such a bad cook, the dog begs for Alka-Seltzer.
   	Rodney Dangerfield

Post a reply to this message