|
 |
Op 16-11-2021 om 11:52 schreef Mr:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degroot org> wrote:
>> Op 11-11-2021 om 19:19 schreef bubble_person:
>>> Finally, with the fade_power, how is 1000 bad, but 1 or 1001 good? I did a
>>> little copy-pasting of this part from an example, so I had not really asked
>>> myself what realistic values should be.
>>>
>> Alain is right about the fade_power of 1001. However, when I wanted to
>> find again the location of this in the wiki pages to help your
>> understanding of it - surprisingly - I was unable to find it! I am sure
>> it was there, somewhere, in the documentation...
>>
>> --
>> Thomas
>
> Generally, when this occurs, the bit of information, is rather in release logs
> instead of doc, if you do find it in one or the other, please share, so that we
> can update or ignore. Meanwhile, I added some of Alain's guidelines to
> dispersion page in the wiki which are developing a bit further than current doc,
> so if a native speaker wants to restyle, do not hesitate and add your
> improvements in the page's discussion:
> https://wiki.povray.org/content/Reference:Interior#Dispersion
>
I am not sure. In the 'Attenuation' section of 'Dispersion & Caustics',
there is that mention about "If you set fade_power in the interior of an
object at 1000 or above, a realistic exponential attenuation function
will be used". I guess that the '1001' value comes from there.
This brings the following question: What is the difference between
fade_power 2 and fade_power 1001, as both, in the docs/wiki, are
described as 'exponential'?
Finally, in:
https://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3C4f2654d6%241%40news.povray.org%3E/
Ive tells us: "note that this "fade_power 1001" statement is an old (and
really dirty as it lacks any logic) hack that is part of POV-Ray since
ages to turn realistic fade power calculation on."
Food for thoughts?
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
