"Chris Huff" <chr### [at] maccom> wrote in message
news:chrishuff-0FE0ED.06112709102000@news.povray.org...
> > * add a float factor for :
> > "shadowless", "no_shadow", "double_illuminate", "no_reflection" and
> > "no_image" (any other?)
>
> Possible, though I don't know how useful most would be. A better idea
> for some, like double_illuminate, would be a pigment to specify the
> color of the illumination. For shadowless/no_shadow, you can simply use
> a semitransparent object. For no_reflection and no_image, you could
> probably easily do whatever you want with combinations of opaque and
> semitransparent versions of the object.

I certainly have immediate uses for shadowless, double_illuminate and
no_image. I included the others to keep some syntax coherence.

For no_shadow, no_reflection, no_image I do not see how to easily get the
effects I am thinking off (rather like a fade in/out then a filter or a
transparency).



> > * "blinn_ior" distinct from interior{ior} - maybe use the interior ior
> > value if no blinn_ior specified
>
> This could be an optional parameter for the blinn highlight, you
> wouldn't even need to add an extra keyword...

I choosed "blinn <amount> blinn_ior <ior>" for syntax similarity with
"phong <amount> phong_size <size>" and "specular <amount> roughness
<roughness>".


> but it might calculate the
> ior from the differences in ior between objects, like it does for
> refraction, which might make this more difficult.

Sorry, but I really do not understand what you are talking about... :-( I
thought the blinn highlight finish was constant on an object (if you set
texture maps aside) and independant from any other objects... I guess I do
not know what I am talking about. I'll go and check MegaPov documentation
(RTFM).

Are you implicitly saying that the other changes are trivial ? (hope)


> > * should "no_shadow" and "shadowless" be interchangeable ? (as there
> > can be no mistake as to whether the keyword is in an object or in a
> > light and they serve a _very_ similar purpose).
>
> I think both should use the "shadowless" keyword(or even better,
> "shadows on|off"). "no_shadow" implies one shadow, and there can easily
> be more...and besides, it has one of those pesky underscore marks which
> I find slow typing down.

Yes, I like "shadow on|off |float", for both usages. It is more intuitive.
And "reflection", "image", "highlight" and "double_illuminate" (and
"radiosity"). I do prefer all singular keywords, but I do not really care as
long as it is consistent (may be difficult with plurals). (Side note : but
_I_like_ underscore marks.)


> > * could a "no_highlight" (or rather a "highlightless") keyword added and
> > the highlightlessness be dissociated from shadowlessness?
>
> How about a "highlights on|off" keyword? Or even better, control of
> specific types of highlights..."specular on|off", "phong on|off", "blinn
> on|off".

Yes, "highlight on|off|float" _plus_ specific control.


> Would allowing transformations to be done within the warp{} block be
> what you want? Or are you talking about transforming the warps
> themselves?
> I think it could be useful if you could use scale, translate, etc. as
> warps in the warp{} block, this would be a better solution to the
> problem my "scaled turbulence" patch tries to solve.

Instead of writing :
   [...] scale .5 warp{turbulence 1/3} scale 2 [...]
Use :
   [...] warp{turbulence 1/3 scale .5} [...]

>
> > * would a no_radiosity (for objects) and a radiosityless (for lights) be
> > possible? (I have a hunch that this one would be quite difficult.)
>
> Again, I would like "radiosity on|off" better...I just prefer the
> "feature on|off" syntax to a keyword that turns things on or off.
> And I don't think it would be possible to exclude lights. Objects would
> be different though...I think "no_image" makes them invisible to
> radiosity(though it also makes them invisible to you...).


Yes, yes, whatever the keyword : the functionnality!



Thanks for your answers,


Povingly,

Philippe

Post a reply to this message