Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tDOTdegroot@interdotnlanotherdotnet> wrote:
> > "clipka" <ano### [at] anonymousorg> schreef in bericht
> > news:4a7dc8f1$1@news.povray.org...
> > > To make a long story short: Iridescence is badly broken (and has always
> > > been, by the way). I suggest to give it a major overhaul - even at the
> > > cost of breaking compatibility with 3.6.
>
> > That last should not be a problem imo.
>
>   Especially since iridescence seems to be one of the features seldom used
> by anybody, for some reason.
>
> --
>                                                           - Warp
Probably because it's a royal pain in the neck to tune properly, and rarely
looks "right". :-)

Really, between iridescence, dispersion, and photons, an alternate color system
- basically, "give us the spectrum" rather than "give us the effective color" -
seems like it's almost a necessity.  (Probably wouldn't hurt the whole
subsurface system either.)

That's just asking for potentially ugly code, though, and is more the realm of
4.0 than 3.7 anyway...

Post a reply to this message