Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> > (A) There is nothing I actively /want/ - In case you didn't notice, this
> > is how it /is/ implemented right now. The one who /wants/ a change is /you/.
>
>   The question is about clarity and flexibility. The current solution is
> confusing (as demonstrated by the original post) and inflexible.
>
>   Compare the situation to how it would be with photons. What is clearer and
> less confusing, this:
>
>     photons off
>     no_photons
>
> or this:
>
>     photons { collect off }
>     photons { pass_through }
>
>   You are basically advocating the former, for the sole reason that someone
> made the poor choice of using that syntax in megapov.

I've got to say, as a user, the no_radiosity keyword was immediately obvious,
and followed clearly in the same model as no_shadow, no_reflection, etc. The
mental model I have is that all objects use all the rendering features, but you
have the option to turn specific ones off with the no_* keywords. Also
no_bump_scale follows this pattern.

Radiosity has to turned on globally, but then it affects everything just like
shadows and reflection do.

Photons have to be turned on per object, which differs from the other rendering
effects.

I understand how not adding new keywords is desirable, and how the photon model
is more logical, but  I think the problem is that the two paths have already
been laid in POV (no_* and the photon {} block). The Megapov patch simply chose
the more "popular" and simple option, and as I said before, it makes immediate
sense to a user. And that's not mentioning "shadowless" which is yet another
way POV has already gone in terms of keywords.

Perhaps, if POV wishes to move more in the photon block direction, there could
be a transitional period that uses both forms - i.e. "no_reflection" and
"reflection { off }". no_shadow, no_image and shadowless don't fit that quite
as well though, but I'm sure something could be thought up that's both clear
and logical.

Cheers,
Edouard.

Post a reply to this message