|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
In article <71m7btcbcguaoigqmbshrfdulggc8pa0pr@4ax.com>, Peter Popov
<pet### [at] vip bg> 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] mac com, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tag povray org, http://tag.povray.org/
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |