Op 14/04/2021 om 19:11 schreef Kenneth:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I changed every <0.000, 0.000, 0.000> to <0.004, 0.004, 0.004> (which
>>>>> corresponds to 1/256)
>>
>> Also changed the remaining 0.000 values (only a few left) to 0.004.
>>
> 
> It just occurred to me that a small explanatory note-- about the 'why' of this
> addition-- might be useful, somewhere in your package. So that future users
> don't scratch their heads and flood the newsgroups with questions like, "WHY are
> these values not 0.0??! What's this crazy .004 addition for??" Maybe for users
> like...me, ha. When I've long since forgotten the details of this discussion :-P
> 
> Perhaps a modified form of Bald Eagle's explanation(s) would suffice.

That is certainly important to mention indeed. I make a note, and it 
will find its place in the explanatory part of the include, or better, 
in the html document to be still done.

> 
> And I neglected to mention what a nice job you did with collating and updating
> these granite textures. Your hard work is appreciated. I especially like the
> three-way 'switch' for each texture, a great addition.
> 
> Thank you!
> 

Thank you indeed, sir :-) I thought these granites would be a nice test 
case to see how we can upgrade and go forward. Although I probably found 
the earliest mention of the code back in 1996, I fail to remember /when/ 
and /where/ those granites appeared in the POV-Ray n.g. proper. I 
mention them in a post back in 2014, but earlier...?

Still a lot to do of course.

============================================================

Maybe this would be the right place and time to make a suggestion about 
the "real" upgrade.

Using the draft comments from Bald Eagle as well as from Maurice (Mr), 
to only mention two of the contributors, I would like to suggest to keep 
the first two SCS switches (0 and 1) for the "original" code, and use 
switch (2) for a real upgrade and overhaul towards a full-fledged 
material implementation, including all the sophisticated possibilities 
like sslt. Or, should this be implemented in a to be created switch (3)? 
Or even as a separated include file?

How do you all feel about this? My personal preference would be to use 
switch (2).

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message