In article <38b68a04@news.povray.org>, "Nathan Kopp" <Nat### [at] Koppcom> 
wrote:

> Note that the keyword used is 'add_layer' instead of 'texture'.  I 
> personally don't like the way that layered textures are currently 
> specified (it has produced unexpected results for me on many 
> occasions before I looked at the source code).  Therefore, this is 
> just a quick brainstorm suggestion (probably not something that I 
> will endorse in the future).

I agree about the layered texture syntax...if someone rewrites it, it 
might also be a good idea to specify the way a texture's contribution is 
calculated: additive, multiplicative, subractive, darken, lighten, etc. 
Something like my old transparency patch(which never got finished). The 
ability to access layers by index might be useful too. Something like:
texture_layers {
   add_layer {subtractive MyTexture// Adds a texture to the list
      at layer_top// or layer_bottom, or index value
   }
   replace_layer {additive MyTextureB// replaces a texture in the list
      at layer_bottom// or layer_top, or index value
   }
   
   //removes a layer from the list
   remove_layer layer_top// or layer_bottom, or index value
}

However, most of the time only "add_layer" would be needed. The only 
uses I can think of for the other keywords would be for modifying 
existing declared objects(not that this wouldn't often be useful...). 
The same would go for the "at" keyword for specifying the position of 
the layer: the default would be layer_top, and so the order could be 
specified just by adding them in order.

And of course this could be a lot of trouble to implement in the current 
code. Another possibility for 4.0?

-- 
Chris Huff
e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/

Post a reply to this message