Unfortunately, yes, I believe so. Same went for dispersion before it got
hard-coded into that custom compile of POV-Ray. You did the dispersion 
about the same before then, by using texture averaging of the
refractions. Then POV-Ray code changed and it didn't work with 3.1
anymore until the dispersion patch.


Thomas Lake wrote:
> 
> Jerry Anning wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 15 Apr 1999 17:52:06 +0300, Lewis <ble### [at] netvisionnetil>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >I handed in the lab report today, but I would like to know how to
> > >specify a spectrum for the light source (in UVPOV)
> >
> > Here is a quote from a recent post by Nathan Kopp:
> >
> > > I have implemented dispersion, but there's no default spectrum.  If you
> > > creat your light source like this:
> > >
> > > light_source
> > >   <10,10,10>
> > >   color <1,1,1> // this will be replaced, but the parser is a hack right
> > >                 //   now, so it is still required
> > >   color_map{    // here you define your light's spectrum
> > >                 //   this color_map acts like "average":  the first value is
> > >                 //   weight (intensity), the second is color
> > >     [1, <.5,0,0>]
> > >     [1, <.2,.2,0>]
> > >     [1, <.3,.3,0>]
> > >     [1, <0,.5,.5>]
> > >     [1, <0,0,.5>]
> > >   }
> > > }
> > >
> > > Notice, the color map entries added up to <1,1,1>.  This spectrum will
> > > probably look bad (I made it up just now), but you get the idea.
> >
> > Jerry Anning
> > clem "at" dhol "dot" com
> 
> Does this mean that UVPov can't actually simulate colour splitting. Instead you
> have to fake it by defining the spectrum colours?

-- 
 omniVERSE: beyond the universe
  http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
 mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?Subject=PoV-News

Post a reply to this message