Thomas,

This shows one of the main drawbacks of all 3D applications. Although 
geometry made up of polygons transfers perfectly most of the time. There 
is no consistent way of defining materials. Even if the material 
properties are named the same and use the same format they are usually 
interpreted differently.

Some times this occurs because of of closed format specifications and 
other times because developers do not adhere to the published 
specifications for the format used. Maybe some time in the future there 
will be a unified format like PDF is for print work today. This does not 
even cover other topics like animation, lighting and commercialization 
which complicates the creation of an unified 3D format more difficult.

In fact the current PDF standard now includes full 3D objects now so 
maybe there is a chance of this happening.

FlyerX

Thomas de Groot wrote:
> I did a little test with Silo too.
> 
> Silo has a material parameter called 'shininess', which controls the size of 
> the specular highlights. By default, it is at value 127. This translates in 
> Poseray to Specular Size 1, and hence to POV-Ray to a roughness of 
> approximately 0.002
> 
> In the same way:
> a shininess value of 10 in Silo, translates to Specular Size 10 and 
> roughness 0.02443085
> a shininess value of 20 in Silo, translates to Specular Size 5 and roughness 
> 0.01244878
> a shininess value of 30 in Silo, translates to Specular Size 3 and roughness 
> 0.007655948
> a shininess value of 40 in Silo, translates to Specular Size 3 and roughness 
> 0.007655948
> a shininess value of 50 in Silo, translates to Specular Size 2 and roughness 
> 0.005259534
> a shininess value of 60 in Silo, translates to Specular Size 2 and roughness 
> 0.005259534
> 
> I assume (but I may be wrong) that shininess plays a fairly identical role 
> to 'glossiness' in DS. However, it works consistently as is shown by the 
> test.
> 
> Thomas
> 
>

Post a reply to this message