<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000099">
<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
href="http://www.3d-designs-davidblack.blogspot.com">3d-designs-davidblack.blogspot.com</a></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>