clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Warp schrieb:
> >
> >   I see radiosity being more akin to photon mapping than to things like
> > no_image and no_reflection.
>
> Um... no.
>
> Radiosity is actually just cached diffuse reflections, nothing else.
> It's the forward-raytracing component that places photon mapping
> seriously off the grid.
>
> There is no such thing as a "collect on|off" or "emission on|off" in the
> specular (inter-)reflection block, so why should there be such a thing
> for diffuse interreflection?
>
> >   Just because an unofficial patch has made poor choices in syntax doesn't
> > mean those same poor choices must be replicated in the official version.
>
> It isn't a poor choice from my seat, for the reasons already explained,
> and in that light I do think that the syntax of a well-established
> unfficial patch should be favored over an otherwise equally good but
> newly invented syntax.

this is my irrelevant view...

But photons and radiosity in "global_settings" are already very similar!

Making radiosity syntax more similar to photons (outside "global_settings")
would not be all bad...

I find that the idea of Warp is slightly better that syntax "no_..." for
radiosity.

Post a reply to this message