[Bf-cycles] Reflective, Refractive caustics - Further thoughts
David Black
db4tech at yahoo.co.uk
Sun Sep 7 01:15:59 CEST 2014
After further thoughts, best to keep same introduction as Shadows
tool-tip, with "Use", rather than "Include".
*Reflective Caustics: "Use 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: "Use refractive caustics, resulting in brighter
image, more noise but added realism"* (as above)
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: [Bf-cycles] Reflective, Refractive caustics
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2014 00:08:23 +0100
From: David Black <db4tech at yahoo.co.uk>
Reply-To: bf-cycles at blender.org
To: bf-cycles at blender.org
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/e6b9a75a/attachment.htm
More information about the Bf-cycles
mailing list