"Mr" <m******r******at_hotmail_dot_fr> wrote:

> I don't mind having to break out of the default for establishing realism, but, i
> guess I expected that one keyword to do it would be the expected toolset's
> consistency and efficiency.


> why should we use the same value for specular and reflection when using both?
> Say if we think of emulating a layered material with varnished mirror-like
> reflectivity but a more say oily or smooth inner structure... Couldn't both
> these layers have different shininess?

Hi Maurice,

I think that for a lot of things, we're just going to have to set up systems
that lay out the underlying theoretical framework in SDL, using functions,
macros, and comments for placeholders.

So, in the same way that we can't query camera location, or directly access mesh
or prism vertices, and so need to store those values in variables/identifiers
and arrays - so we will need to store all of the texturing values and manually
process them that way.

In the absence of a dev team / developer / development - we'll just have to
program everything in SDL.  Then, once someone gets around to writing source
code to implement such things, "all they will have to do" is translate from SDL
to cpp/C. (and yes, they will have to smoothly integrate that into the whole
existing source code framework).

At the very least, it helps the rest of learn about what makes textures more
realistic, since we can follow the logic or how the textures are formally
constructed.  Presumably, there will also be equations for lighting models and
other light/shadow/reflection effects that will be used as a basic for the macro
/algorithm logic that will self-document such things and help people learn about
those as well.

- BW

Post a reply to this message