[Bf-cycles] Reflective, Refractive caustics

[David Black]

Thank you Thomas for your work on separating caustics capabilities.

 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:

Currently 3 close together UI options with their tool-tips...
*Shadows: "Use transparency of surfaces for rendering shadows"* (reading 
this its clear that ticking this will use transparency)
*Reflective Caustics: "Leave out reflective caustics, resulting in 
darker image with less noise"* (reading this it could indicate ticking 
this will not include that type of caustics)
*Refractive Caustics: "Leave out refractive caustics, resulting in 
darker image with less noise"* (as above)

Possible alternatives?
*Reflective Caustics: "Include reflective caustics, resulting in 
brighter image, more noise but added realism"* (reading this it appears 
ticking this will include that type of caustics)
*Refractive Caustics: "Include refractive caustics, resulting in 
brighter image, more noise but added realism"* (as above)

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.

Thank you kindly for your time,
David

3d-designs-davidblack.blogspot.com 
<http://www.3d-designs-davidblack.blogspot.com>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-cycles/attachments/20140907/f054e5ba/attachment.htm