 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken <tyl### [at] pacbell net> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <slr### [at] fwicom>, ron### [at] povrayorg
wrote:
> 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.
I was actually thinking more of media, fade_color, etc...faces with
different iors would work the same way it does now with a union of
triangles, each with their own interiors.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 03 Jan 2001 19:38:51 -0500, Chris Huff wrote:
>In article <slr### [at] fwicom>, ron### [at] povrayorg
>wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>I was actually thinking more of media, fade_color, etc...faces with
>different iors would work the same way it does now with a union of
>triangles, each with their own interiors.
i.e. not at all. Or at least not in any physically realistic way.
Media has the same issues as refraction, actually: it only gets calculated
when you hit another face that points to the same interior. If you never do,
media never happens.
--
Ron Parker http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
My opinions. Mine. Not anyone else's.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
