Page 1 of 1
Refractions
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:06 pm
by 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
Re: Refractions
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 1:28 pm
by tom
tom wrote:Half Life wrote: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.
Re: Refractions
Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 3:32 pm
by 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
Re: Refractions
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:02 am
by Bubbaloo
Just kidding, Ernesto. Couldn't resist.
Re: Refractions
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 9:02 am
by 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:
Re: Refractions
Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 3:14 pm
by tom
Ernesto wrote:Am I right?
Yes, you're right.
Re: Refractions
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 1:14 am
by 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