[Ernesto]

I assume (by the heavy noise) that a transparent material with a ND =1 is being calculated by Maxwell as producing refractions, although in the final image there would be no refractions.
Is that right?

E

[tom]

I have a question Tom, how is refraction even possible at Nd of 1 -- isn't that exactly the same as vacuum which is = to Maxwell "air"?

If so, there should be nothing to refract since the light rays would not bend at all... it would be as if the object was not there (ghost as you call it) -- or is there some additional subtlety of physics at work here?

It's the additional subtlety of coding. As a very simple example, the results of expressions A = B and A = B * 1.00 is the same, while one of them is slower than the other.

[Ernesto]

So; if I undersood it ok, there are two options to do it:

a) calculating refractions
b) ignoring refractions

The result in the image will be exactly the same in any of the options.
And the election of each of them wil depend on coding, therefore the rendering speed will depend on coding too.

Am I right?

Ernesto

[Bubbaloo]

Just kidding, Ernesto. Couldn't resist.

[rusteberg]

that's funny. a dog with a mask on his face. it's almost like you want him to put a muzzle on or something. that's crazy super funny.

they come in HalfLife size too:

[tom]

Am I right?

Yes, you're right.

[Ernesto]

I see...
But coding could be changed, so that it would not calculate refractions when it is not necesary.
Wouldn´t that be a good improvement?

Ernesto