In article <39e17f7c@news.povray.org>, "Philippe Debar" 
<phi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

> * 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.


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


> * 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.


> * 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".


> * support of this syntax :
> WARP:
>    warp{WARP_ITEM TRANSFORMATIONS}
> instead of always doing "inverse transform, warp{}, transform" (even 
> if it is done so internally).

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.


> * 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...).

-- 
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