[Bf-cycles] Reflective, Refractive caustics - Further thoughts

[Thomas Dinges]

Hi David,

you are correct, the tooltips should be changed, will do in a minute.
I reversed the option based on feedback, and because it is more 
consistent with the other options, I forgot about the tooltips though.

Thanks for bringing this up! :)

Best regards,
Thomas

Am 07.09.2014 um 01:15 schrieb David Black:
> 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>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-cycles mailing list
> Bf-cycles at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-cycles

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-cycles/attachments/20140907/e65fdd1a/attachment.htm