Why isn't this in Blender?
I'm having a hard time setting up some lenses in LuxRender, and if it just scattered a couple dozen rays showing me their paths in the viewport, it'd make things so much easier.
Also, the OP image had a string of numbers and letters removed which somebody later told me was to do with a video of a cat getting fucked by a dog.
Is this true?
It's a free program. What you get for that price is pretty amazing, but that's what you get.
Doing test-renders is just part of life, run a low resolution and low samples configuration while you set it up and ramp up when you're ready for finals.
But that doesn't show me the ray paths.
C'est la vie.
>Visualising ray paths
you can't estimate straight fucking lines?
I'm trying to figure out if a certain type of lens is physically possible.
/sci/ says it isn't, but they've gone /b/-tier stupid of late, and kept suggesting cameras.
>sci straight up tells you that you can't do something
>can't seem to do it with 3d
>complains about the program
Will this also change the face of reality forever if you succeed?
I'm just trying to use 3D as a tool to assist me in figuring out the required lens and mirror arrangement, I'm merely blaming the program for not having ray path display capabilities.
And as far as I can tell so far, whatever solution I figure out if there is one, it's going to be of no more than 25% efficiency, perhaps won't be able to be focused, and with a possibility of ghost images; so it's not exactly surprising I couldn't find the lens design I'm looking for when other lenses do almost the same job perfectly.
Only reason I'm looking at such an absurd type of lens is because I'm studying ambience transplantation as an architectural concept, and the most stylistic solution is said absurd type of lens.
And you're asking this from a free piece of software.
Fake it. You won't learn anything useful from a digital representation.
It's much easier working with optical simulation tools than doing everything in my head.
>certain type of lens
you would need to code for that.
i'm pretty certain no 3d program comes stock with separate ray tracers for different lenses.
The fuck are you talking about? Different lenses don't require different raytracers. The rays don't give a shit. If's about curvatures of the object.
How about you give us a screenshot or explanation of what makes your lense special, because currently you've given us nothing but vague descriptions and it honestly seems like you're avoiding the topic.
What exactly are you trying to do and with what?
Of course it is
The question is: Can it be produced cheaply
Considering how bad you're at explaining it, I'm not surprised they got the answer wrong.
A somewhat funtional but very slow workaround: volumetric material and laser like lightsource.
What I mean:
1. fill the scene with almost invisible volumetric "smoke/fog"
2. use lightsource that has very thin light cone, almost a line
3. apply lences and see where the light is refracted
This would also work in cycles, so it would be easier to test.
im an architecture student and I can tell you having also worked with lenses for projects just make small scale replicas in real life, because no amount of paper work or 3d simulation will be accurate enough to really understand
I tried this in LuxRender before making this thread, couldn't get anything clear enough.
Maybe internal render or Cycles would work well though.
Did you try using the laser light option?
Having difficulty getting a laser light.
I made a point light and gave it the nodes shown in http://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/1096/making-a-laser-in-cycles-straight-beam-of-light (For the line laser) but it's just lighting up the room perfectly evenly.
Sorry I meant in Luxrender. I mean't to quote >>497417
but deleted the post number by accident.
The laser light option is under the area light. Only for the Luxcore2.0 API.
>Why isn't this in Blender?
nigga. when did you spend something for blender foundation last time?