In article <3c2515a3@news.povray.org>, "JRG" <jrg### [at] hotmailcom> 
wrote:

I think the most flexible way would be to have some kind of 
"interaction_group" that covers lights (including highlights), 
reflection, refraction, etc...basically "this object only reflects this 
group of objects, and only has highlights from this group of lights". I 
think radiosity would still have to be a separate flag.
However, this would probably be too complex to use...it would most 
likely be simpler to use a shader of some sort.

-- 
 -- 
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>

Post a reply to this message

In article <3c267180@news.povray.org> , "JRG" <jrg### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

> To me it does make sense. Look at the Lightflow's cornell box posted to
> p.b-i. You wouldn't say it's physically impossible, but the camera is just
> two units outside the actual box.

I somehow do not believe the original Cornell box was designed this way...

> But you can forget what I asked for, because I somehow dislike the tone of
> some responses here.

I just think you are taking the wrong approach to the problem with your
scene.  Instead of thinking for hours how POV-Ry could be changed, try to go
with what you have and you will get amazing results and maybe find a
creative way without someone else adding a feature to POV-Ray for you.

Somehow what you suggest is like suggesting to add drills to cars so you can
drill for oil when you run out of fuel.  Sure you could do it, but it might
not be the most practical solution :-)

    Thorsten

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

Kari Kivisalo wrote:
> If pure ambient sources are used this is not a problem.
> When light sources are used the ambient object still has
> to be there for reflections and in direct view but not
> emit light.

 I've found a half-workaround for this problem, if you are not going to use 
media interacting radiosity. You can put a very intense emission media 
inside your ambient object, with a clear pigment, and of course mantain 
media off on the radiosity block. This gives a nice solid luminous object 
for reflections/refraction withouth emitting any light. It works nicely for 
me, because I will surely never use "media on" with radiosity.

-- 
Jaime Vives Piqueres

La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org

Post a reply to this message

JRG wrote:
 
> > 2. This aspect was not in your initial query. You did not even mention
> radiosity.
> 
> Which means you didn't pay attention to my first post (radiosity is
> mentioned there).

Ok, my fault.

> 
> >    It's look like you're asking something while wanting something else.
> >    (asking for new feature, while wanting radiosity evolution/debugging)
> 
> That was just an example. I thought of the most general feature which might
> include what I was looking for.
> 
> > BUT:
> >  - I do not see the interest of it (as exposed in your initial request)
> 
> YHO
Exactly, Even the no_* are still rarely used/needed.
And the scene you described did not convince me for the suggested solution.

> 
> >  - I'm personaly against it
> 
> Morally?
Sort of. 
Your suggestion needs to modify the very heart of the engine.
patches from safe/simple to unsafe/complex are in order (IMNSHO):
 - new pattern
 - new warp
 - new object
 - alternative behaviour/adding flags

So, when you asked directly for the most dangerous, it triggered a red flag ;-)

> >  - Last, you came to that solution because you had a problem with
> radiosity...
> >    Fixing the wheels won't put gazoline in the tank!
> 
> As I said, I looked for the most general solution.

Well, I would said that you jumped to the conclusion :-)
Moreover, the problem of the "spy-mirror" (one side see the other, whereas
the other see only itself) was recently discussed (even if I cannot here find the 
reference to it) and is very similar to your exposed problem.
You may have wanted to discuss your problem in newsgroups, before requesting
your solution... there is usually more than one way to solve a problem.

BTW, have a look in p.b.i, I have a proposition for your problem.
It's bigger than the needed code change for your solution, because it needs a
new object, but I consider it to be safer because it won't touch any shared code.
-- 
Non Sine Numine
http://grimbert.cjb.net/
Etiquette is for those with no breeding;
fashion for those with no taste.

Post a reply to this message

"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
> Somehow what you suggest is like suggesting to add drills to cars so you
can
> drill for oil when you run out of fuel.  Sure you could do it, but it might
> not be the most practical solution :-)

*lol*
sigged ...


--
"Somehow what you suggest is like suggesting to add drills \ jan### [at] lzernet
to cars so you can drill for oil when you run out of fuel.  \
Sure you could do it, but it might not be the most practical >          Jan
solution." [Thorsten Froehlich in p.u.p]                    /        Walzer

Post a reply to this message