Well, it comes down to this  - you gentlemen know exactly how each of the
finish components interact and thus approach the task of creating textures
methodically and scientifically.  I, on the other hand, have only a vague
understanding of what I'm doing, and just sit and wiggle the slider knobs
until I arrive at something acceptably close to the desired appearance. :-)

I am pretty happy with what I ended up, though, despite my hit-and-miss
approach.  I prefer to think of textures as half art and half voodoo.  If
you know what you're going to end up with before you start, then it takes
all the fun away!

Cris Williams

"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:3A954E3F.FD34CF80@gmx.de...
>
>
> "Bob H." wrote:
> >
> > Ah yes, but in this case it does make a difference.  Seeing this message
I
> > at first thought the roughness was 0.03308, not 0.3308.  If it were then
> > both highlights would have been very similar in both intensity and size.
> > This texture actually has a relatively large specular and smaller phong
> > highlight.
> > I often use the both of them together.  Anyway, I figure you might have
also
> > thought the two were close in appearance so I wanted to speak up here.
> >
>
> That's what i meant with 'special effects'.  I'm not sure if i leads to
> visible results here, brilliance is also quite high giving a third factor
> to take into account.
>
> Christoph
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
> IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other
> things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message