Am 21.11.2013 00:03, schrieb Tim Cook:
> On 2013-11-18 09:36, clipka wrote:
>> I know that you love that trick, and have in some tutorial made claims
>> that it is a sufficient replacement for inbuilt blurred reflections, but
>> the above facts make it no more than a nasty kludge. One that can be
>> used to good effect if you invest sufficient time and effort, but a
>> kludge nonetheless.
>
> Micronormals (which is how real-world blurred reflections happen, afaik)
> are a kludge?  I'd think the inbuilt blurred reflection would be moreso,
> as it's a corner-cutting technique to save time and computational
> resources...  ;)

Indeed, but the inbuilt ones are not /nasty/ :-P (because they're much 
easier to use).

That said, the most kludgy thing ot the "current trick" (in terms of 
realism, not in terms of ease of use as I originally meant) is not so 
much that it uses micronormals in the first place, but that it averages 
multiple micronormals textures to achieve the oversampling required. 
Real-world blurred reflections normally don't do /that/ ;-).

Post a reply to this message