![](/i/fill.gif) |
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
I just spent two hours figuring out why I didn't get any photons when I
found that a looks_like{sphere .. statement in my light_source was to blame.
Adding pass_through for the sphere corrected this, but wouldn't it be a good
idea to have it set as default for looks_like objects?
sig
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
In general photons act a bit ilogically with shadowless object. When you
make an object shadowless and the light passes through that object, it's
logical to expect photons to pass through as well. I don't know why the
shadowless-keyword is ignored by the photons calculations.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Warp <war### [at] tag povray org> wrote...
> In general photons act a bit ilogically with shadowless object. When you
> make an object shadowless and the light passes through that object, it's
> logical to expect photons to pass through as well. I don't know why the
> shadowless-keyword is ignored by the photons calculations.
Photon interaction with objects is a bit more complicated than shadow-ray
interaction. However, it's not to difficutl to make no_shadow work like
pass_through. This will decrease the amount of control you have over your
objects (currently, you can have an object that uses no_shadow but not
pass_through, but if I make this change then you will not be able to use the
no_shadow feature without the pass_through feature). Comments?
-Nathan
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Warp wrote:
>
> In general photons act a bit ilogically with shadowless object. When you
> make an object shadowless and the light passes through that object, it's
> logical to expect photons to pass through as well. I don't know why the
> shadowless-keyword is ignored by the photons calculations.
Yes, well I don't know either why there's a seperate keyword for photons and
regular lights. More flexibility I guess. What I'm saying is that
pass_through could have been enabeled by default for looks_like objects,
just as shadowless is.
sig
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
> (currently, you can have an object that uses no_shadow but not
> pass_through,
I think this is good because, even if this is perhaps not logical,
this allow more control and effect in a scene.
Fabian.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Nathan Kopp <Nat### [at] kopp com> wrote:
: Photon interaction with objects is a bit more complicated than shadow-ray
: interaction. However, it's not to difficutl to make no_shadow work like
: pass_through. This will decrease the amount of control you have over your
: objects (currently, you can have an object that uses no_shadow but not
: pass_through, but if I make this change then you will not be able to use the
: no_shadow feature without the pass_through feature). Comments?
I think that a compromise could be the perfect solution:
By default, applying no_shadow to an object also applies pass_through
to it.
If you don't want photons passing through, you can specify it like this:
object
{ MyObject
no_shadow
photons { pass_through off }
}
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Warp wrote:
> By default, applying no_shadow to an object also applies pass_through
I agree.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Sigmund Kyrre Aas wrote:
>
> Yes, well I don't know either why there's a seperate keyword for photons and
> regular lights. More flexibility I guess. What I'm saying is that
> pass_through could have been enabeled by default for looks_like objects,
> just as shadowless is.
>
> sig
Sorry, replace shadowless with no_shadow.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |