"Mr" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Why not name it "sslt_mm_per_unit" to have a better idea of what it does... ?

(1) Imagine some feature coming up somewhen in the future that would need a
realistic scale of reference as well: Would that "borrow" the
"sslt_mm_per_unit" value, or add its own redundant parameter?

It really does what it says: It provides an actual scale of reference for all
effects that use such a scale. It just so happens that SSLT is currently the
only one that does.

(2) SSLT is alpha-stage, and any syntax it introduces is as experimental as the
code itself (maybe even more so).


> I aslo think that naming it sss instead of sstl would be less error prone but who
> cares...

(3) It's "SSLT" ("Subsurface Light Transport"), not "SSTL".

(4) It is implemented using an approach discussed in the paper "A Practical
Model for Subsurface Light Transport" by Henrik Wann Jensen et al.; I'm not
sure whether there is any technical difference in the term as opposed to
"Subsurface Scattering", but if there is, SSLT would obviously be the more
appropriate term.

(5) You will notice that the current syntax uses neither "sss" nor "sslt", but
"subsurface".

(6) see (2).


> > I don't think that the algorithm is optimised for a value of 100, it's
> > just the default value.
>
> I get it, only the default value is mm_per_unit 10 (100 was what worked best for
> my scene)

That may be due to the coefficients you picked for the material ;)

Post a reply to this message