In article <71m7btcbcguaoigqmbshrfdulggc8pa0pr@4ax.com>, Peter Popov 
<pet### [at] vipbg> wrote:

> >I don't think this will work...as far as I know, radiosity samples are 
> >taken as if they were camera rays, so if it is visible to the camera, it 
> >is visible to radiosity.
> I wonder why. It doesn't make sense to me. Can someone please explain?

Because radiosity doesn't have anything to do with ordinary reflection? 
I know diffuse illumination is from reflection in the real world, but 
radiosity doesn't have anything to do directly with the value specified 
using the "reflection" keyword, so I don't think it would make sense for 
"no_reflection" to affect it. The "no_image" keyword might, but it will 
also make it invisible to the camera...a "no_radiosity" flag is needed.
I think to be really useful, we would need some kind of 
"visibility_group" or "interaction_group" feature to specify which 
objects reflect/transmit which objects. Maybe separate 
"reflection_group", "radiosity_group", "transparence_group", etc...but I 
think a single group keyword should be able to control all of this.

-- 
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/

<><

Post a reply to this message