Am 09.08.2017 um 22:25 schrieb Kenneth:

> I take the "true geometric surface normal" to mean the unalterted,
> un-interpolated *single* normal on the face of the flat triangle. Is that
> correct?

Yes.

> Also: It is becoming clearer to me as to why SSLT works better on an object with
> finer-and-finer triangle subdivisions (and perhaps not so well with large flat
> 'mathematical' slabs like a box object?)

The results are actually quite accurate for "large flat 'mathematical'
slabs", if that's the shape you intend to model. The problem isn't the
presence of edges /per se/ -- the problem is the presence of edges in
places where you want to pretend that there are none.

> The smaller triangles-- curving away at
> slightly different angles-- cause the (many) incoming rays (and subsequent
> subsurface 'volume gathering') to be averaged together in a smoother way, with
> the artifacts contributing less to the 'larger' average, or being swamped by it.
> This is my layman's understanding, anyway ;-)  Please correct me if I'm mistaken
> or hopelessly wrong. If I'm at least somewhat correct, then POV-Ray's in-built
> documentation doesn't actually mention the need for finer triangle-mesh
> subdivisions, to get a smoother look. Perhaps it should, in light of Flyer X's
> results.

The SSLT feature is still considered highly experimental, and so are its
docs.

Post a reply to this message