>   The problem is that the rendering engine assumes that objects return
> the *true* normal vector for the given point in their surface. For an
object
> to render correctly, it *must* give the exact normal vector (ie. a vector
> which is exactly perpendicular to the surface at that point).

Yeah, I was thinking last night and realized what was happening internally.

So, would it be too difficult if, when doing the test to see if the normal
vector should be flipped around, instead of using the perturbed normal, it
used the actual normal? At least with smoothed triangles?

 - Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

Post a reply to this message