Could this be implemented in a version (official/unofficial) based on 3.5?
http://www.noisemachine.com/talk1/11.html

FYI: The guy who did this was Ken Perlin, if you didn't know, he came up
with Perlin Noise.
--
__________________
 RAY

Post a reply to this message

In article <3d3b2dc3@news.povray.org>, "RAY" <RAY### [at] yahoocom> wrote:

> Could this be implemented in a version (official/unofficial) based on 3.5?
> http://www.noisemachine.com/talk1/11.html

Variable ior requires very large amounts of processing power, and is 
rarely of any use. This "could" be implemented, but it would require 
rewriting a lot of code and the end result would be little more than a 
curiousity, so it is unlikely anyone will do so. Most of the things you 
could want this feature for could be imitated by using multiple layered 
surfaces with varying iors and normals.

-- 
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message

Christopher James Huff wrote:
>In article <3d3b2dc3[at]news.povray.org>, "RAY" <RAY### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>
>> Could this be implemented in a version (official/unofficial) based on 3.5?
>> http://www.noisemachine.com/talk1/11.html
>
>Variable ior requires very large amounts of processing power, and is
>rarely of any use. This "could" be implemented, but it would require
>rewriting a lot of code and the end result would be little more than a
>curiousity, so it is unlikely anyone will do so. Most of the things you
>could want this feature for could be imitated by using multiple layered
>surfaces with varying iors and normals.
At least we now know that it's possible.


=RAY=

Post a reply to this message

Christopher James Huff wrote:
>In article <3d3b2dc3[at]news.povray.org>, "RAY" <RAY### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>
>> Could this be implemented in a version (official/unofficial) based on 3.5?
>> http://www.noisemachine.com/talk1/11.html
>
>Variable ior requires very large amounts of processing power, and is
>rarely of any use.

Your are right, of course, when you concentrate on 'really' realistic scenes
and renderings.
But the old usage of variable ior could make some very nice scenes. Why
don't (re-)implement [I'm sure the old code isn't completely erased out of
the world ;-)] the old version of ior and naming it e.g.
'irreal-ior'? So you would have all we want:
1) a real ior (which of course belongs to interior becaus it's a matter of
the stuff and not the surface)
2) a nice feature for making some artistic scenes look better (even you
never can build such a scene with realist material - but why not making
irreal pictures?)

Post a reply to this message

In article <web.3d778571bc15a3b5c80208b00@news.povray.org>,
 "MikeTheGuru" <mik### [at] gmxat> wrote:

> But the old usage of variable ior could make some very nice scenes. Why
> don't (re-)implement [I'm sure the old code isn't completely erased out of
> the world ;-)] the old version of ior and naming it e.g.
> 'irreal-ior'? So you would have all we want:

Re-implementing surface-variable ior using old code would be 
unlikely...I'd do it by allowing a function to be specified for the ior 
value, and some sampling parameters that would allow it to just be 
perturbed at the surface or actually sampled through space, just for 
when computers eventually get fast enough to make it useful.
I don't know why you don't just use normal peturbation though...most 
refracting objects won't show much of a difference in surface shading, 
but normal perturbation does affect refraction.

-- 
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message