In article <370### [at] Koppcom> , Nathan Kopp <Nat### [at] Koppcom>  
wrote:

> I personally don't like the way I'm using the 'density' keyword to specify
> photon density.  Usually, when you say density, you want to give a
> items-per-area(or volume) value, not a length value.  So... what would be a
> better keyword?  Would 'spacing' be good? (since you are giving the spacing
> between photons)  I do not want to switch the value to a real density, because
> right now photon 'density' and gather 'radius' are directly related
(linearly),
> making it easy to test with a low number of photons and switch to a large
> number with predictable results (my 'phd' variable, for those who've looked at
> my source).
>
> So... is 'spacing' good?  Any other ideas?

Perhaps intensity?


    Thorsten

Post a reply to this message