> This statement would seem to demonstrate that you are somewhat ill-informed > in this matter.
Ill-informed, yes, but not completely ignorant. I read this (http://freespace.virgin.net/hugo.elias/radiosity/radiosity.htm) somewhere in the middle of the discussion, subsequent to my first post. Pretty much says everything you just did I think. > It would be more truthful to state that there are articles out there by > amateur > persons (Gamedev.Net) who are incorrectly calling their inaccurate diffuse > illumination solutions "radiosity". The actual Radiosity algorithm is well > defined and well documented in academic publications, though perhaps > these amateur persons have failed to study them sufficiently thoroughly. To be entirely honest, I didn't even begin reading that article before I linked to it. My point at the time was that a simple Google search, even by the uninformed, could produce some information that would indicate that methods existed. I read it later, and felt that, yes, the author of the article came off as quite amateurish, almost like a purveyor of perpetual motion machines. (They all sound the same.) But you should note I later pointed out the issue could be, quite simply, a matter of ambiguous naming. There are a lot of explanations for the thing, and none of them are going to be completely satisfactory other than Valve actually explaining the matter. And if I was someone from Valve right now, I personally wouldn't want to wade out into the flame wars to disseminate that knowledge unless I really had to. (Sigh, and I'm sorry for breaking my promise. *This* post is the last. Really, really.) -- Bob Aman http://www.rapidcanvas.com _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlcoders
