Ron Parker wrote:
> Quite possibly because POV has been around since long before those
> algorithms were known.  Possibly because we do this in our spare time.
> Possibly because nobody's ever mentioned them before.  Possibly
> because, as Nathan mentioned, they don't work all that well in
> raytracers that use implicit surfaces.

Thanks Ron, for your reply.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to blame and I understand your arguments. But I
was disappointed by what seems like unnecessary competition. I have the
greatest respect for the POV authors. I didn't mean THEY should have
implemented the formulas in the first place. The author of Lightflow
COULD have done it however, since his product seems like a POV concept.
And we don't need incompatible programs. POV is already established and
well known.

>> >> In some cases, these free light-algoritms render better than POV
>> Which cases? 

Great, Warp! This is indeed very nice! I doubted this was possible. 

The pictures I referred to as being better, well, were mostly the glassy
versions found on the lightflow homepage, buuut.. Hmm now I dare believe
they can be done in POV with the exsisting formulas.. I am surprised.
Hmmm. What a day.


Hugo

Post a reply to this message