 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Take a look at the attached image.
Clearly in this universe, something is fatally wrong with the laws of
reflection. o_O
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'test11-reflect2.jpg' (229 KB)
Preview of image 'test11-reflect2.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27/06/2012 02:10 PM, Invisible wrote:
> Clearly in this universe, something is fatally wrong with the laws of
> reflection. o_O
Bah. Damned sign conventions...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specular_reflection
This claims that the direction of the reflected ray is
R = 2 (I . N) N - I
Running this gives me the previous distorted image. If I change it to
R = I - 2 (I . N) N
then it comes out correctly:
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'test11-reflect2.jpg' (192 KB)
Preview of image 'test11-reflect2.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Clearly in this universe, something is fatally wrong with the laws of
>> reflection. o_O
>
> Bah. Damned sign conventions...
Incidentally, this is exactly the sort of thing that it's really hard to
think up test cases for. I mean, if you build a ray tracer, and your
spheres render inside-out, what have you done wrong? Is there a typo in
your vector arithmetic? Have you got the direction of a ray backwards
somewhere? Is there a glitch in your camera implementation? It's really
hard to know where to start. And it's really hard to come up with actual
test cases other than "make it render something and see if the result
looks plausible"...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> >> Clearly in this universe, something is fatally wrong with the laws of
> >> reflection. o_O
> >
> > Bah. Damned sign conventions...
>
> Incidentally, this is exactly the sort of thing that it's really hard to
> think up test cases for. I mean, if you build a ray tracer, and your
> spheres render inside-out, what have you done wrong? Is there a typo in
> your vector arithmetic? Have you got the direction of a ray backwards
> somewhere? Is there a glitch in your camera implementation? It's really
> hard to know where to start. And it's really hard to come up with actual
> test cases other than "make it render something and see if the result
> looks plausible"...
so I take it this is from a raytracer written by you?
be sure to implement those perfectly curved woman bodies as builtin shapes. ^_^
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Incidentally, this is exactly the sort of thing that it's really hard to
>> think up test cases for.
>
> so I take it this is from a raytracer written by you?
Well *obviously*. Why else would it suck so much? ;-)
> be sure to implement those perfectly curved woman bodies as builtin shapes. ^_^
Yeah, about that... exactly how many women's bodies do you think I've
actually /seen/??
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Incidentally, this is exactly the sort of thing that it's really hard to
>>> think up test cases for.
>>
>> so I take it this is from a raytracer written by you?
>
> Well *obviously*. Why else would it suck so much? ;-)
>
>> be sure to implement those perfectly curved woman bodies as builtin
>> shapes. ^_^
>
> Yeah, about that... exactly how many women's bodies do you think I've
> actually /seen/??
Psst. There are pictures of women in various levels of clothing on the
internet.
I say this purely for scientific reasearch purposes, obviously. *cough*
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> be sure to implement those perfectly curved woman bodies as builtin
>>> shapes. ^_^
>>
>> Yeah, about that... exactly how many women's bodies do you think I've
>> actually /seen/??
>
> Psst. There are pictures of women in various levels of clothing on the
> internet.
>
> I say this purely for scientific reasearch purposes, obviously. *cough*
Pff. Yeah. Like any of those are *real*... :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > be sure to implement those perfectly curved woman bodies as builtin shapes. ^_^
> Yeah, about that... exactly how many women's bodies do you think I've
> actually /seen/??
According to your own statements, at least one. Or were you pulling a fast
one on us?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Yeah, about that... exactly how many women's bodies do you think I've
>> actually /seen/??
>
> According to your own statements, at least one. Or were you pulling a fast
> one on us?
"One" is quite a small number. Indeed, it has the unique property of
being the smallest strictly-positive integer.
Besides, I wasn't exactly taking notes and drawing schematics. I was...
kind of busy. Still, I'm sure my /hands/ remember the shape, so if
there's some modeller where you can sculpt shapes using loving
caresses... ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> Yeah, about that... exactly how many women's bodies do you think I've
> >> actually /seen/??
> >
> > According to your own statements, at least one. Or were you pulling a fast
> > one on us?
> "One" is quite a small number. Indeed, it has the unique property of
> being the smallest strictly-positive integer.
It's still better than zero, like with some people.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
