clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:

>
> Now this multi-sample approach [with true MEDIA] is obviously expensive in
> terms of render performance. Fog is designed to be much cheaper (at the cost
> of realism)...

Just a thought...

The various fog files were written quite a long time ago (I assume, although
there are no origination dates in the files themselves.) Rendering scenes back
then was a slow process.

Modern computers are SO much more powerful and faster now-- so might a re-think
of fog's basic code/paradigm be possible or appropriate? Not as true media of
course, but some type of better-thought-out approach (possibly a bit more
expensive, computation-wise), to mitigate some of fog's current limitations? My
own thoughts go in the 'camera projection' direction-- which would probably
require a good deal more sophistication than Rune's Illusion approach-- but
that's just one naive(?)idea.

Post a reply to this message