Slime wrote:

>>Big deal, there are lots of us here who use scattering media despite it
>>being "too slow". My suggestion: If you're too impatient for raytracing,
>>then don't do it.
> 
> 
> Now, hold on. He has good reasons for wanting to use emitting media instead
> of scattering. One of those reasons is speed, to which your only argument
> seems to be "it's not that bad" or "it could be worse." Well, he's looked at
> the tradeoff between speed and quality/accuracy of his two options, and he's
> made a choice. Personally, I think it's a very reasonable choice. I also
> agree with him on the difficulty of getting spotlights to look nice in
> scattering media.
> 
> 
>>I hate it when people ask for advice, then when they don't get the
>>answer they want to hear they go on some long, drawn out diatribe about
>>how they were right in the first place, and anyone who advises them are
>>wrong.
> 
> 
> He didn't ask for advice on what type of media to use. He asked for help on
> writing a function to describe the light cone of a spotlight. When
> challenged on his choice of media types, he gave an explanation for his
> decision. It's not something we need to get hostile about.
> 
> It's fine to encourage him to reconsider, but this isn't a case of right or
> wrong.

Hmm. I may have jumped the gun, there.

... I do think my suggestion of f_cone with an appropriate density map 
would get him where he needs to be, though. The math behind it escapes 
me at the moment, though to get an exact representation given the 
parameters.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message