 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3a462f06@news.povray.org>, Warp <war### [at] tag povrayorg>
wrote:
> Why it should be coded when it makes no sense in the first place?
I think you misunderstood me...I was saying that it wouldn't be
impossible to code, but you would have to specifically define what it
would mean and it wouldn't correspond to any real-life effect.
> A triangle has no interior. Why one should be able to specify interior
> properties for it?
Well, you can, because a triangle is an object, it just won't correspond
to anything in reality. And because triangles in a mesh are not separate
objects, they can only have textures, though you can give the entire
mesh an interior.
--
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Huff wrote:
> > A triangle has no interior. Why one should be able to specify interior
> > properties for it?
>
> Well, you can, because a triangle is an object, it just won't correspond
> to anything in reality. And because triangles in a mesh are not separate
> objects, they can only have textures, though you can give the entire
> mesh an interior.
It is useful to allow refraction for patch objects. Render the following
and you will clearly see that it refracts just as you would expect it to
in real life -
camera{ location<0,1,-2>look_at y*.2}
light_source{<0,100,0>rgb 1}
triangle{<-1,0,0>,<0,1,0>,<1,0,0> rotate y*22.5
pigment{rgbf .8}interior{ior 1.5}}
plane{y,0 pigment{ checker color rgb 0 color rgb 1 scale .5}}
--
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
: It is useful to allow refraction for patch objects. Render the following
: and you will clearly see that it refracts just as you would expect it to
: in real life -
In real life an (almost) infinitely thin surface doesn't refract at all.
Refraction requires difference in density in different sides of a surface.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3A46CC17.EBD9DEB9@pacbell.net>, lin### [at] povrayorg
wrote:
> It is useful to allow refraction for patch objects. Render the following
> and you will clearly see that it refracts just as you would expect it to
> in real life -
No it doesn't...it refracts like the surface of an object would,
everything seen through it is "inside". If there is something behind it,
it refracts as if it extended all the way to that object.
In real life, if infinitely thin objects were possible, they wouldn't
refract at all.
--
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gentlemen,
While what you may say is true about infinitely thin objects
(such a thing does not exist ) it is POV-Ray that allows for
this inconsistancy not me. And again I assert that it can be
useful.
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
: While what you may say is true about infinitely thin objects
: (such a thing does not exist ) it is POV-Ray that allows for
: this inconsistancy not me.
It was you who mentioned "real life" :)
: And again I assert that it can be useful.
Granted.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3A477719.EDFDACF6@pacbell.net>, lin### [at] povrayorg
wrote:
> While what you may say is true about infinitely thin objects
> (such a thing does not exist ) it is POV-Ray that allows for
> this inconsistancy not me. And again I assert that it can be
> useful.
Well, you are the one who said "you will clearly see that it refracts
just as you would expect it to in real life". And I never said it wasn't
useful, just that "it just won't correspond to anything in reality".
--
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Now I know what it's like to be TAG teamed :)
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Dec 2000 14:05:29 -0500, Chris Huff wrote:
>In article <3a462f06@news.povray.org>, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>
>wrote:
>
>> Why it should be coded when it makes no sense in the first place?
>
>I think you misunderstood me...I was saying that it wouldn't be
>impossible to code, but you would have to specifically define what it
>would mean and it wouldn't correspond to any real-life effect.
Not as easy as you might think. The way refraction works is very dependent
on all faces of a closed object having the same interior. Remove that
property, and you get to rewrite huge parts of the rendering engine.
--
Ron Parker http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
My opinions. Mine. Not anyone else's.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Dec 2000 08:34:33 -0800, Ken wrote:
>
>Gentlemen,
>
>While what you may say is true about infinitely thin objects
>(such a thing does not exist ) it is POV-Ray that allows for
>this inconsistancy not me. And again I assert that it can be
>useful.
It's not inconsistent. It's just not expected to be used that way.
Make a box or a tetrahedron or something with those triangles, though,
and you'll appreciate the fact that they can have an interior.
--
Ron Parker http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
My opinions. Mine. Not anyone else's.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
