<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi David,<br>
      <br>
      you are correct, the tooltips should be changed, will do in a
      minute. <br>
      I reversed the option based on feedback, and because it is more
      consistent with the other options, I forgot about the tooltips
      though. <br>
      <br>
      Thanks for bringing this up! :)<br>
      <br>
      Best regards,<br>
      Thomas<br>
      <br>
      Am 07.09.2014 um 01:15 schrieb David Black:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote cite="mid:540B95AF.90600@yahoo.co.uk" type="cite">
      <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
        charset=windows-1252">
      After further thoughts, best to keep same introduction as Shadows
      tool-tip, with "Use", rather than "Include".<br>
      <br>
      <b>Reflective Caustics: "Use reflective caustics, resulting in
        brighter image, more noise but added realism"</b> (reading this
      it appears ticking this will include that type of caustics)<br>
      <b>Refractive Caustics: "Use refractive caustics, resulting in
        brighter image, more noise but added realism"</b> (as above)<br>
      <div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
        <br>
        <br>
        -------- Forwarded Message --------
        <table class="moz-email-headers-table" border="0"
          cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
          <tbody>
            <tr>
              <th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Subject:

              </th>
              <td>[Bf-cycles] Reflective, Refractive caustics</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Date:
              </th>
              <td>Sun, 07 Sep 2014 00:08:23 +0100</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">From:
              </th>
              <td>David Black <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
                  href="mailto:db4tech@yahoo.co.uk">&lt;db4tech@yahoo.co.uk&gt;</a></td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Reply-To:

              </th>
              <td><a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
                  href="mailto:bf-cycles@blender.org">bf-cycles@blender.org</a></td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">To: </th>
              <td><a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
                  href="mailto:bf-cycles@blender.org">bf-cycles@blender.org</a></td>
            </tr>
          </tbody>
        </table>
        <br>
        <br>
        <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
          charset=windows-1252">
        <font face="Calibri">Thank you Thomas for your work on
          separating caustics capabilities.<br>
          <br>
          From a UI perspective, now that selection of caustics
          functions are effectively reversed (previous Blender versions,
          a tick indicated No Caustics), now a tick indicates an
          inclusion of that caustics functions, this perfectly follows
          on from above Shadows option and seems more logical. On that
          basis, is it possible that tool-tips should read as a
          positive? For example:<br>
          <br>
          Currently 3 close together UI options with their tool-tips...<br>
          <b>Shadows: "Use transparency of surfaces for rendering
            shadows"</b> (reading this its clear that ticking this will
          use transparency) <br>
          <b>Reflective Caustics: "Leave out reflective caustics,
            resulting in darker image with less noise"</b> (reading this
          it could indicate ticking this will not include that type of
          caustics)<br>
        </font>
        <div class="moz-signature"><b>Refractive Caustics: "Leave out
            refractive caustics, resulting in darker image with less
            noise"</b> (as above)<br>
          <br>
          Possible alternatives?<br>
          <b>Reflective Caustics: "Include reflective caustics,
            resulting in brighter image, more noise but added realism"</b>
          (reading this it appears ticking this will include that type
          of caustics)<br>
          <b>Refractive Caustics: "Include refractive caustics,
            resulting in brighter image, more noise but added realism"</b>
          (as above)<br>
          <br>
          As someone with dyslexia I hope above info makes sense and is
          in some way helpful. When I first tried the new caustics
          functions, I was not sure if I needed to tick the options for
          inclusion or exclusion. As mentioned, your new implementation
          is definitely better, ticking for caustics inclusion.<br>
          <br>
          Thank you kindly for your time,<br>
          David<br>
          <br>
          <p style="font-size:x-small"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
              href="http://www.3d-designs-davidblack.blogspot.com">3d-designs-davidblack.blogspot.com</a></p>
        </div>
        <br>
      </div>
      <br>
      <br>
      <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
      <br>
      <pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Bf-cycles mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Bf-cycles@blender.org">Bf-cycles@blender.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-cycles">http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-cycles</a>
</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>