On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 16:51:30 +0200, Fabien Mosen wrote:
> No.  Pigment and normal values rely on the position of the texture's
>point in space, while finish rely on the normal value, light positions
>and other objects positions.  Put otherwise, pigment and normal are
>"global" properties (doesn't change with the point of view), while
>finish 
>is a "local" (change with the point of view) property.  

Finish doesn't change with the point of view.  The point of view is one
of the parameters that affects the appearance of a finish, but that's it.

> A proof of that ?  With MegaPOV, you can obtain the value of a pigment
>at some point with "eval_pigment", but there's absolutely no way to
>get the finish value of a point in space.

This is not a proof of what you think it is.  The reason there's no way to
get teh finish value is because a given finish is the same everywhere.

>> I think finish_map should be implemented.
>
>Yes.  That's the thing that got me thinking about that hierarchy
>problem.
>I would like to know WHY it hasn't been implemented yet.  I suspect
>that the answer would come back to the hierarchy problem.

I suspect that the answer is that nobody's done it yet.

-- 
Ron Parker   http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
My opinions.  Mine.  Not anyone else's.
Proudly not helping RIAA and SDMI steal my rights -- 
  http://www.eff.org/Misc/EFF/Newsletters/EFFector/HTML/effect13.08.html

Post a reply to this message