Well if you drive the blur scale with incidence from a light then look
at the area from the termination point backwards there seems to be
issues. Also if you insert a changerange and set a negative number
things freak out some more. What looks like the tessellation of the
geometry is also visible in some of my tests.
When I was playing earlier I managed to completely bust it to the point
where each bucket rendered something totally different and it kinda gave
up. Stupidly I closed the scene without saving the log (and even more
stupidly, I hadn't switched on MR verbosity either).
Sorry to be a bit vague, I'd try and fill the gaps a little
later/tomorrow. Like I said though, I'm seeing *alot* of potential for
coolness....
DAN
Alan Jones wrote:
You can tell me how much it sucks if you like. Bug reports would
probably be handy as there may be (read is almost certain to be)
things I haven't thought of as far as potential issues.
Cheers,
Alan.
On 6/3/05, Dan Yargici <dan(at)imajonline.com> wrote:
Hi Alan, just tried it out. Looks really promising.
Not sure what to critisize as you're probably aware of all the current
issues...
This could definately become one for the everyday toolbox though.
Perhaps you should start charging or at least add a PayPal link to your
site?
DAN
Alan Jones wrote:
It's slow, but it works.
No idea whether the idea for the way I've implemented is average or
poor. Could really do with adaptive sampling and other goodies to
speed things up, but we'll see how useful it is first.
Cheers,
Alan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi
