clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Carlo C. schrieb:
> > clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> >> Unless I perfectly goofed it up, "radiosity off" prevents an object from
> >> *receiving* diffuse interreflection (aka radiosity), while
> >> "no_radiosity" prevents an object from *emitting* diffuse interreflection.
>
> (I just checked whether it indeed does what I thought it does after
> having seen the code - it does do right that :-))


Ach komm, das gibt's doch nicht! :-)


> The syntax for "no_radiosity" was chosen to (a) match the megapov
> syntax, and (b) fit into the family of no_shadow, no_reflection and
> no_image keywords, which all basically say, "for the sake of
> [shadow/reflection/image/radiosity] rays, this object does not exist",
> to be consistent there (which was also probably the motivation for the
> megapov syntax).
>
> The "radiosity off" syntax already existed at that time, so it was just
> left unchanged. It's a bit "dangling" I think.


I fully understand the reasons.

Post a reply to this message