Thanks you for your interest, it's just a more than five years old
picture... and you're the first to answer.

Le 03.10.2007 23:55, honnza nous fit lire :

> If you cover some parts of a mirror with paint, you don't get the mirror
> finish on the paint. Rather you get one texture of pure reflection partly
> covered with little reflecting green surface. This is what you get with
> layered & patterned textures.

Wouldn't it be simpler to handle the finish and pigments separatly ?
Unless you have a subsurface-scatering model (and you'd better fake
it than tracing all these rays), I do not see the point of having
layered finish: only the topmost one is the finish you will ever see.

It's a bit like normal, what would be the sense of layered normal ?
(averaged or whatever patterned, I can understand, but layered
normal is such a strange idea...)

> If you want a common finish to multiple textures you should use a clear
> texture over multiple pigment only textures because it is rather how it
> works in reality :-) (a thin film on the surface is what usually does
> reflect)

Or you can duplicate the finish everywhere, but what is your point ?

> But I agree layered pigments might come in handy though layered textures do
> exactly the same (apart from metallic, I presume).

They do the same, but layered textures just seems so wrong in the
scope that textures have reached.

> One warning, though:
> multiple textures each containing a finish get their finishes evaluated
> separately, tracing one ray multiple times
> 
I do not understand that.

-- 
The superior man understands what is right;
the inferior man understands what will sell.
-- Confucius

Post a reply to this message