In article <382F7EBE.D174A959@carmen.murdoch.edu.au> , 
mne### [at] carmenmurdocheduau  wrote:

> 'distribution' is good
>
> Nathan Kopp 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?
>>
>> -Nathan

Please notice that the news.povray.org server keeps messages for a very long
time - the message you replied to is from April 4th, 1999 :-)
You may want to set you newsreader to only show/download a specific number
of recent messages (i.e. 300 or 500) or set it to sort messages by date.


    Thorsten


____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany

Post a reply to this message