Peter Popov <pet### [at] usanet> wrote...
> The problem with overlapping interiors may or may not be possible to
> be solved by proper CSG. Maybe if the objects are tested in a specific
> order (for example the order they appear in the CSG) and the first
> match is returned, the problem would go away. And yes, only pigments
> would be used, but that should be enough to model things such as

Another possibility would be to use an average of textures, in the same way
as multi-textured blobs or the new vertex-textured meshes.  It would
probably just be a straight average (as opposed to a weighted average) to
avoid any proximity testing (which can be really slow, as we've seen).

Unfortunately, this is difficult to implement currently because of the way
that CSG intersections are handled.  It may not be that bad, though... I'll
have to look at it more closely and let you know.

> >> : polygonal spotlight
> >
> >This is an interesting idea, but couldn't it be done with the
> >projected_through patch?
>
> No, because the falloff (for spotlights) would still be circular and
> not polygonal.

Well, that changes things (and makes them much more difficult to implement).

>
> >> : chop pieces off with bounding
>
> I admit it is probably a bad idea anyway, especially because it would
> duplicate the functionality of the CSG texture patch if it gets
> implemented. [clip] So I am
> proposing both patches because I can't tell right now which one would
> be easier/simlper/safer to possibly implement.

Understood.

> Ditto. Combine this with custom BRDFs and you have infinite
> possibilities.

Custom BRDFs sounds really fun (though they can be slow).

> I've raised the question of simulating wave properties (wavelength,
> phase and polarization) a couple of times myself but it was
> overlooked. Your idea is certainly more versatile and I see good uses
> for it already.

Actually, it wasn't overlooked, just avoided due to perceived complexity.

-Nathan

(I am speaking for myself, not the POV-Team.)

Post a reply to this message