home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ Light ROM 4 / Light ROM 4 - Disc 1.iso / text / maillist / 1995 / 1095.doc / 001663_owner-lightwav…mail.webcom.com_Mon Oct 30 22:49:22 1995.msg < prev    next >
Internet Message Format  |  1995-11-07  |  1KB
  1. Received: by mail.webcom.com
  2.     (1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA264702162; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 22:49:22 -0800
  3. Return-Path: <owner-lightwave@mail.webcom.com>
  4. Received: from access1.digex.net by mail.webcom.com with ESMTP
  5.     (1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA264352149; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 22:49:10 -0800
  6. Received: (from erniew@localhost) by access1.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA09898 ; for ; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 01:42:23 -0500
  7. Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 01:42:22 -0500 (EST)
  8. From: Ernie Wright <erniew@access.digex.net>
  9. To: lightwave@mail.webcom.com
  10. Subject: Re: Refraction?
  11. In-Reply-To: <9510310348.AA00ii7@fusion.mv.com>
  12. Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951031013948.9705A-100000@access1.digex.net>
  13. Mime-Version: 1.0
  14. Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
  15. Sender: owner-lightwave@mail.webcom.com
  16. Precedence: bulk
  17.  
  18. > Does the Refractive Index value entered itself have any effect on 
  19. > rendering times? I mean, I know it takes longer then no refraction,
  20. > but does a setting of 1.5 render faster then a setting of 2.0?
  21.  
  22. Mark Thompson replied:
  23.  
  24. > Yes, but not significantly.
  25.  
  26. How come?
  27.  
  28. - Ernie
  29.  
  30. --
  31. Ernie Wright <erniew@access.digex.net> sent this message.
  32. To Post a Message           : lightwave@webcom.com
  33. Un/Subscription Requests To : lightwave-request@webcom.com
  34. (DIGEST)                 or : lightwave-digest-request@webcom.com
  35. Administrative Items To     : owner-lightwave@webcom.com