"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> > Hmm, that's bad! :-O   You're right, it certainly isn't applicable in all cases.
>
> I've been thinking for quite some time now that the use of the ambient term in
> radiosity-only scenes is no good. When one wants to create a light source in a
> radiosity-only scene, technically the classic lighting's ambient mechanism does
> the required thing, but the intention is *far* away from the concept implied by
> that parameter's name. And it keeps causing trouble.
>
> If I'm asked, there should be a separate "emission" parameter, with the whole
> "ambient" mechanism turned off in radiosity scenes.
>
> After all, the original intention of the ambient term, and its most common use
> in non-radiosity scenes, is to approximate diffuse illumination - which is
> *exactly* what radiosity is intended to model more realistically.

Aha - that sounds like exactly the correct solution to this morass! Brilliant!

Cheers,
Edouard.

Post a reply to this message