"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Otherwise, any further discussion about SSLT between the two of us ends right
> here.

I'm sure we all hate to see 'points of order' getting in the way of genuine
creative discussion, and this seems to be one of those moments.

I wouldn't like to see developers' time wrapped up in answering FAQs, answering
points that have been adequately answered in the past, or be sidetracked into
peripheral arguments, and instead have them doing what they enjoy: the creative
stuff that helps future POV-Ray users to create great-looking images.

I was going to suggest that a short statement be composed about the new SSLT
implelementation, but remembered that was the first thing that clipka did:
stating that it was *a first attempt, at alpha quality, in a beta release*. We
also discussed priorities that would enable SSLT to be more useful in general
scenes. I wonder if that information could be better-placed, so that we don't
get into today's situation so easily?

So yes, I would suggest that anyone wanting to pitch in - with key ideological
statements, or converse opinions about the correctness of an agreed approach -
read up and be well-versed in the background material, including having a go at
reading the referenced SigGraph paper, understanding what's happening with light
in real life, and how SSLT approximates it, and also having a play with POV-Ray
to understand the limitations. I would consider any less understanding - at
least when throwing major curveballs - to be a little disrespectful to others
here.

Having said that, I see no harm in people pitching shorter questions that can be
quickly answred, in a way that does not take much time for all parties (who are:
the curious posters, the knowledgeable answerers, and those who plough through
the material in search of something they can contribute towards).

Post a reply to this message