On 11/19/2013 09:02 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 19.11.2013 13:52, schrieb James Holsenback:
>
>>> 2. The description for the forth diagram in this section "To give the
>>> tightness
>>> value full control over the spotlight's appearance use radius 0
>>> falloff 90. As
>>> you can see from the figure below." should be correct.
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> I think that is radius 90 falloff 90 for the diagram.
>>
>> i played around with this (quickly) and it doesn't seem to make a
>> difference if it's 0 or 90
>
> It does as soon as tightness comes into play.

ah ... yes i know. i guess i should have said for a given tightness both 
radius values look practically the same

> There /is/ something fishy about that diagram and the paragraph before
> it. The diagram says something about "negative radius", and indeed
> doesn't match a radius of 0.
>
> I think in the long run the section should be overhauled, and give
> sample renders instead of (or at least in addition to) diagrams.

yeah ... there /does/ appear to be more than one rough spot, so yeah i 
agree. on my todo list (sigh)

Post a reply to this message