Most of the comments I've seen on FB find this fun and amazing; I kinda wonder if it's Photoshop.

I was working on a project for upload a year ago last December, trying to get it posted by January 1st. But I'm a depressive...and I kinda bottomed out. And I puttered on and off but I have trouble keeping focused. Thought I was starting to feel better in the fall but I was wrong, lol. I'm still kinda shaky...but I never did get that project from last year completed, so maybe that's next.

I appreciate your kind words.

Ty - you're not such a villian.

I've received a comment on the download page here from someone whose sensibilities were offended by the prop. Allow me to stress that 1) I didn't invent these, 2) They were long in use from somewhere around the turn of the century and well into the 1940's in upper-class and upper-middle-class homes in Europe and America, and 3) no animal was harmed in the creation of this Poser prop. I am not insensistive to such feelings but suggesting that I not build a prop like this is comparable to saying that I should not model a handgun because there are those who do not like handguns.

On the off chance any one is wondering why I've been posting a number of freebies recently, I just thought it would be nice to put up some of the better one-offs I've created for myself for the past few years.

You;re both welcome...hope everyone has fun with it.

Noticed that, tyvm.

 BTW, I know you know what I am talking about, 90% of what we have as "argument" here is semantics. But, to be honest, I don't care if I change a thought or word in what you have written. I do care that those who read this have a basic understanding of the render processes - algorithms be damned. So, if I have oversimplified some things for the sake of clarity, as I have said, we will clean those up as we go along...we have the opportunity to make this an extraordinary discussion about rendering and raytracing. But let's try to make it so someone can follow it from square one forward...

And, second request, can we be civil?

 You want to go back to square one, the initial point I was making?

Renderer light rays will illuminate all forward-facing polygons that they strike. Range-limiters (fall off is one kind of range limiter) will modify the distance or intensity in which the renderer illuminates the scene but they do NOT stop the ray from passing through 3D objects and illuminating 3D objects beyond.

They do generate information to the renderer to add information to whatever cast shadows routine is being employed.

Or stated another way: The ray hits a face... to simplify for others, a note is made by the renderer that light may stop here (in part because it has to go back to see if it need to generate a reflection ray and because it must evaluate for its shadow mechanisms) .. then the ray continues on. If it finds others it will illuminate those, too. Period.

Right. Before we continue, let's make sure we are agreed on that. It is important to note that render rays are paths, they are simply lines. They are not light rays. They are not packets of quanta or any other physical thing. They are lines. This is important - new people tend to think of ray trace rays as light rays. They are not light rays. Light is blocked and reflected by surfaces, renderer rays are generated as part of a formula. Renderer rays are USED TO COLLECT DATA.

These are basic concepts which are taught nowhere that I know of in 3D books and manuals, And you have to start simple, but it doesn't make sense to talk about downstream anything if we can't get the first concepts down.

Your last post first...it was joke. Sorry to confuse things. I am not manic.  I AM a depressive, however.*  Does it have a bearing here?

*Technically, I a monopolar, aka unipolar. My states run between depressed and normal. I will ask again, does it have a bearing here?

And it gets back to this conversation...if you want to sling insults, find someone else. I find it hurts your credibility. You may be right, but who cares that you're freaked out about it?

BTW, I was going to ref some of the same wiki definitions but decided it was patronizing. I find that funny - humorous that both of us would be thinking along the same proofs. Does THAT make me manic? Please explain mania as you believe it applies here. And if that sounds like I'm baiting you...you betcha. Where do we go after name-calling? Guns, thermonuclear weapons? I think, with name-calling, we've already exhausted our real choices...

Forget rendering and radiosity - does the term "civil" mean anything to you?

And, since I forgot to do it before, I wish your wife a sincere happy birthday. I hope she has a great day. For that matter, I hope everyone has a great day. 

 I wrote IDL is new to 8. That's gotta be wrong, I think that's your error, I can't find anything on IDL - you are referring to IBL?

I am assuming that IDL works with renderosity in completing a render. :)

 In the meantime: 

"I only read a little bit of what you said ... So much is wrong... Why did you post all that?"

If you only read a little, why be so aggressive?  If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me. Why post? I don't know, why are you posting? Kind of a pointless and merely aggressive question.

"[Radiosity]...has sort of been discredited."  I understand that you're saying that most programs aren't as concerned with radiosity...but, gee, my 3-yr old C4D is loaded with GI-radiosity features. Radiosity has NOT been discredited. Radiosity theory is what drives all the other radiosity techniques. I repeat, AO/IBL/global light techniques are primarily radiosity fakers - their first job is to "fill in" all that ambient light - anything else they do(which is, often, better reflectance simulation) is gravy. "Reflectance," btw, is still a part of radiosity theory.

If you read about making IBL photos for example or if you actually make them...you will discover that IBLs are used to provide detail for both things in shadows and things in light washed-out areas. I.e., IBLs are radiosity fakers.

And so it goes...

AO is ambient occlusion...it's in the name, it's an attempt to fake the impact of ambient lighting. I.e., it's a radiosity faker.

Radiosity itself is a formula but is done to SIMULATE RL lighting. "Simulate" as is laboratory recreate RL lighting. The study of radiosity is the study of ambient light. Saying it's discredited is like saying archaeology has been discredited. It has never been discredited...but it's slow ...really really slooooooooow. Therefore, it's lousy for real-time games, and lousy for filmmakers. But it's just great for faking photographs...if you have the time.

"Poser doesn't do radiosity. " Correct. But if you don't understand what "radiosity" is then how can you ever understand what the others are faking? And many are like me...and often don't render in Poser...so we need to understand the principles so we can take them to Bryce, Vue, C4D, 3DS, tS...wherever...  And, unlike D/S, there is no Adobe Bridge atm w Poser - so we may have to composite with pictures from different sources. We have to understand radiosity concepts and how these various pieces of software simulate radiosity so that we may integrate them freely.

I have to know more than Poser. That doesn't make me better, it means I have to work that much harder and I can be wrong about a greater range of things. I have time to learn. If I am ignorant, I don't have time to be angry about it. What a waste...

If I have made broad statements, I will be glad to amend them as we talk. I made several in what I wrote, but in terms of teaching those new to the software or radiosity ideas, I will let them be atm.

I wrote that renderer rays only stop with external controls...i.e., fall-off and range limits. And that, in the meantime, they will light every forward-looking face they hit. That is not wrong. You're saying that doesn't make it wrong. Please be so kind as to provide your explanations.

There are many fall-off formulas, btw, inverse, squared, and inverse square are a few and they have been with 3D for some time. Poser is getting to them very late. They were in use in 90s when, according to you, radiosity was in its heyday. Calculating light fall-off is, in fact, part of any radiosity solution - these formulas were developed for use in the so-called discredited radiosity calculations to achieve a radiosity solution that could then be applied to a render.

Doesn't our ability to plug in different formulas suggest anything to you? As in, everything here is fake? Nothing is "real" or "accurate" in 3D. It's all simulation. And if you can adjust, like light range and light fall off, then you must realize that you may make it "appear" more realistic but it's not realistic. "Realism" is simply a term of convenience replacing the awkward "make it look more real." Ray trace lighting is NOT RL based light ray lighting - everything we do here is a fake...in exactly the same arbitrary way that painting and drawing and photography are fakes.
There is nothing wrong with faking, to make that clear - but it's art, it ain't science. I like art. I like science, too. They help each other.

"...so I won't be online much if at all."  I'm not going anywhere. As long you're civil and stop assuming things, I'll be happy to stay. Please lead us.

You're right, lol - I must have had renderosity on my brain. I said it instead of radiosity all along.

No - the basic tenet isn't wrong. Whether you use IBL, AO, IDL or Global Lighting - they are not more accurate because they are not ligting simulatons (radiosity is), they are ligting poseurs - they fake lighting.

Falloff by formula is one kind of distance control. It often is an addendum to RANGE which, in many programs can be specified. The "falloff' tells the software how the light fades within the range.

Distance controls do not stop light rays from doing things like lighting ALL forward-facing (to the light source) surfaces from being lit up, distance controls just cut them off...by formula.

In rea life, things like walls and hair and skulls and objects stop light rays...OK. a few bounce around and become ambient due to the nature of the surface they hit. Yes, real light falls off with distance but...in the meantime it does not pass through surfaces. 

I repeat, renderer light rays pass through objects. That's not wrong. Wasn't wrong yesterday, won't be wrong tomorrow. It's the reason nostril light-up has been a historic problem with Poser. 

I'm not pissed at you. If you can teach me more, teach. I'm not new here. I've been around under one form or another for more than eight years. I don't always write,, haven't always spent much time writing here. I don't live online, this forum (or any other) is not my home. I have a different life, as you apparently do too. I have gotten help here,before,  I have helped others here before. In terms of our discussion, it is not important if you remember me. I remember me and that is enough.

Global lighting, AO and IBL were all potentially in play in Poser vers. 5 thru 7, depending on the choices made by the artist-creator. Before that, without Firefly, only global lighting could be used to fake radiosity. IDL is new to 8 - I don't have 8 so I can't address it's specifics but...

Theoretically, if it's not a radiosity calculator...it's a faker ... of one kind or another. Changing the initials means we have still another way to fake radiosity. I repeat, since the invention of raytracing, it's been a non-stop race to find newer and better ways to soften its result.

If you're just going to say I'm wrong you're not much help - to me, the original poster here, or anyone else.. No one can learn from that. I am patient, I can wait for your return. Please don't shove the responsibility for your claims onto someone else.

I don't get angry over this stuff. We may disagree, but I won't get angry...I promise. And it's not nice of you to assume that I am. I assume we will have good civilized conversation and that we both will learn things, I hope you will assume the same. I apologize to everyone for saying renderosity for radiosity...but once the term is corrected, there's nothing wrong with what I wrote. If there is, I am most willing to learn from what you have to offer. 

Sooo...I am ready for you to actually correct me, i.e. provide insight into my errors.

 Thank you ALL for your feedback. I sincerely appreciate it.