|
 |
You are correct, but this power is applied within an exponential curve. I
think it's like exp(-x) vs exp(-pow(x,2)), IIRC. we were debating the power
part without mentioning the exp part... or at least that's what I think was
being discussed!
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
"scott" <ask### [at] me com> wrote in message news:4528e243@news.povray.org...
>> > OMG... you created something 17,826% better than what I had in
>> > about 20 seconds!
>> Fade_power should be 1 to be physicaly correct. A value of 2 is
>> perfect for a light source, double the distance and get 1/4 the
>> lighting, not for fading trough some substance. Light absorbtion
>> trough a substance is linearly proportional to the thicknessm, double
>> the thickness and the effect double, it don't quadruple.
>
> Physically correct is exponential isn't it? ie a certain % of the light
> gets attenuated each unit distance. If a certain distance only lets 10%
> of the light through, then you'd expect 1% after double the distance,
> 0.01% after 4x etc.
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
