The problem has to be with the way they've implemented the normal
rotation it shouldn't be possible to rotate them even to 90 degree
from the initial normal. Because even if one sample was infinity and
the one beside it was -infinity the angle still wouldn't quite reach
90 degrees - it'd just be a cliff that's almost 90 degrees.
Though I've no idea why they've got 2 different implementations of
bumpmap generation. I never use the one that's within the shaders
though - always bumpmap generator.
Cheers,
Alan.
On 7/26/05, Chris Marshall <chris(at)eclipsecreative.co.uk> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: kim aldis <kim(at)aldis.org.uk>
> To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
> Sent: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:54:41 +0100
> Subject: RE: bump bug? try this out...
>
>
> > in the scene here, I turned the light intensity up to f50 (just to be sure)
> > then turned the bump down to 0. no sign of any light from the rear. At .1
> > there's still no sign. At 1, it appears, just along the top.
> >
> > (tentatively) I'd expect to see this. you're rotating normals and it's
> > entirely likely you could rotate them to point to within the 90 degree band
> > at which the surface becomes visible. The shadows thing, though, that does
> > bother me no-end.
> >
> > Have I got it right this time Chris?
> >
>
> just about
>
>
> ---
> 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
