In article <3AA2B1D7.1530E613@gmx.de>, Christoph Hormann 
<chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:

> > I think it makes sense in this case...actually, "blurred_pattern" 
> > seems even better. Just plain "blur" seems kind of ambiguous...it 
> > doesn't seem as apparent that the *pattern* is what is being 
> > blurred.
> All right, since English is not my native language i will not argue that. 

I just added it to my code, and realized it takes a pigment, not a 
pattern...why is that? It kind of messes up my logic for the name...it 
should be "blurred_pigment_pattern". ;-)
I think my first modification will be to change it to use a 
pattern...that might speed it up slightly. I can't think of any benefit 
to using a pigment...


> > Alright...I just downloaded the source code, and will probably 
> > integrate your stuff into MegaPOV+. (it will be the last thing 
> > added, though, in case you release a new version before I complete 
> > MP+)
> Will that be based on Megapov 0.7 ?

Yes.


> Integrating your particle system patch I also saw that some other things
> were not yet included in Megapov like the curvature pattern.  What's the
> reason?

They aren't finished, some of them just don't work.


> > Now *that* has some potential for confusion...
> Yeah :-)
> 
> While the 'shadows' in the object pattern with visibility are infinitely
> long, the value raises to 1 at the length of the distance vector in the
> visibility pattern.

So the value tends toward 0 as the object gets nearer, and the effect of 
an object gets stronger with distance? That doesn't seem right...an 
object should have less influence with distance.

-- 
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