On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 12:19:24 -0500, Christopher James Huff
<chr### [at] maccom> wrote:

>Instead of an opaque texture? Yes, it will be slower. The attenuation 
>calculations themselves don't cost much, though they are quite a bit 
>more than just using a constant color value, but any transparency at all 
>will require tracing at least one refracted ray every time the water is 
>hit, and then the additional texture calculation of the ground under the 
>water.

You're right, of course, it's just that I thought it was rgbf 0.1 in
the original post.




Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message