I've been working on adding photon mapping to the superpatch (actually
my minipatch to the superpatch).  It didn't go very smoothly because of
the mix of Nathan's photon stuff and Mike Paul's reflection stuff, but I
finally got it working with just the angle-dependent reflectivity
working (I haven't added reflection blur yet).  There may also be a
thing or two for the superpatch not working because I had to start with
the uvpatches lighting.c.  For the most part I think it's OK though.

Anyway, I was wondering if I should try to adapt the angle_dependent
reflectivity for tracing photons?  I won't be using it for TIR - it
wouldn't be total if I did. :)

I'm not even going to consider reflection blurred photons since that's
overkill IMO.

-Mike

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Oct 1999 20:47:07 -0500, Mike <pov### [at] aolcom> wrote:

>I've been working on adding photon mapping to the superpatch (actually
>my minipatch to the superpatch).  

Uh.... you want my source code?  Nathan's already added photon mapping
to the superpatch, I just haven't released it yet, but it you want to 
play with it just let me know and I'll send it to you.  In exchange, 
maybe you can document it for me. :)

Post a reply to this message

> Uh.... you want my source code?  Nathan's already added photon mapping
> to the superpatch, I just haven't released it yet, but it you want to
> play with it just let me know and I'll send it to you.  In exchange,
> maybe you can document it for me. :)

Ugh...oh well.  Yeah, definitely send it over (my email works).  I don't
know if I can improve it at all but I'll give it a shot.  Btw, what do you
think about the idea of moving all the functions dealing with reflection
and refraction to a seperate include file?  I was thinking about that today
because all the new stuff is really making lighting.c hard to read.
Perhaps if just a few choice functions were moved to a reflection.h it
would make things easier to deal with.

Oh, and when I render a scene with media my patch crashes, so I'm sure I
will find your sources helpful. :)

-Mike

Post a reply to this message

Mike <pov### [at] aolcom> wrote:
: Btw, what do you
: think about the idea of moving all the functions dealing with reflection
: and refraction to a seperate include file?

  If you ever get this kind of feeling, then the answer is automatically "yes".

-- 
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 Thu, 14 Oct 1999 21:39:50 -0500, Mike wrote:
>Ugh...oh well.  Yeah, definitely send it over (my email works).  I don't
>know if I can improve it at all but I'll give it a shot.  Btw, what do you
>think about the idea of moving all the functions dealing with reflection
>and refraction to a seperate include file?  I was thinking about that today
>because all the new stuff is really making lighting.c hard to read.
>Perhaps if just a few choice functions were moved to a reflection.h it
>would make things easier to deal with.

probably not reflection.h, because that's two characters too long.  But I'm
all for splitting it out if it needs it.

Post a reply to this message

Mike <pov### [at] aolcom> wrote...
> Btw, what do you
> think about the idea of moving all the functions dealing with reflection
> and refraction to a seperate include file?  I was thinking about that
today
> because all the new stuff is really making lighting.c hard to read.
> Perhaps if just a few choice functions were moved to a reflection.h it
> would make things easier to deal with.

Don't put functions in a header file.  Headers should only have prototypes
and typedefs, not any code (well, except for inline stuff in C++, but we're
working with C).

I do agree that lighting.c is getting a bit bloated.  Also, the stuff I gave
Ron with photon mapping and Daren's dispersion in the Refract code is really
messy... so feel free to clean it up.  :-)

-Nathan

Post a reply to this message