> -----Original Message-----
> From: Warp [mailto:war### [at] tagpovrayorg]
> Posted At: Saturday, December 27, 2008 2:24 PM
> Posted To: povray.beta-test
> Conversation: Radiosity: status & SMP idea
> Subject: Re: Radiosity: status & SMP idea
> 
> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> > Look at it another way.
> 
> > If there were a feature that made boxes look a *lot* better by
> > performing lighting calculations differently, would you advocate it?
> 
>   That comparison is very poor.

I don't think so.  You're talking about a new lighting model, something
that drastically effects the final image.  If such a lighting model is
usable with only one type of primitive, then any scenes wishing to use
it will be forced to use only that primitive.

In other words, I would be forced to use only meshes if I want the new
lighting model.

>   If you search for models out there, they will invariably be in
> triangle mesh format.

When made by other programs, that is.

Search for items made in POV, and triangle meshes are rather uncommon.

>   A box is in no way so versatile all on its own. You can't use boxes
> only in order to seriously create any scene.

Sure you could, if the tools were written to generate boxes instead of
triangles.  It wouldn't even be that much harder.

Most people modeling don't actually work with triangles; it's just the
tool breaks down what the user does into triangles, and then works with
those.  The same effect *could* be achieved with boxes.

>   It makes a lot of sense to add enhancing features which work on
> meshes only, for the exact reason that meshes are so versatile and
common.

Fine, I agree that meshes are common... in other modelers.

>   And it's not like there would be no precedent. For example, even
> though UV-mapping cannot be applied to all POV-Ray primitives, that
didn't
> stop people from implementing it in POV-Ray.

That's because if I use UV-mapping, I'm not prohibited from using a
sphere right next to the mesh.  If the lighting model is different for
the two objects, however, I would be (unless I were trying to achieve a
discrepancy between the two).

If it were something as trivial as UV mapping, I'd say go for it.  But
for something as *global* as the lighting model, I think it needs to
apply to all POV primitives for it to be workable.

...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message