EnigmA Amiga Run 1997 July/EnigmA AMIGA RUN 20 (1997)(G.R. Edizioni)(IT)[!][issue 1997-07 & 08][EAR-CD IV].iso/lightwave/lwmlist/95.lightwave-10/001648_owner-lightwav…mail.webcom.com_Mon Oct 30 10:10:54 1995.msg

Internet Message Format | 1995-11-07 | 1KB

Received: by mail.webcom.com
    (1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA079996654; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 10:10:54 -0800
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from Fox.NSTN.Ca (fox.nstn.ns.ca) by mail.webcom.com with ESMTP
    (1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA079936649; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 10:10:49 -0800
Received: from pembroke-ts-07.nstn.ca (pembroke-ts-07.nstn.ca [137.186.17.107]) by Fox.NSTN.Ca (8.6.10/8.6.10) with SMTP id OAA23059 for <[e-mail]>; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 14:03:52 -0400
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
From: "Chris Purdie" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Date:          Mon, 30 Oct 1995 13:57:12 -0400
Mime-Version:  1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Subject:       Refraction?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Priority: normal
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail/Windows (v1.22)
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


Does the Refractive Index value entered itself have any effect on
rendering times? I mean, I know it takes longer then no refraction, but
does a setting of 1.5 render faster then a setting of 2.0? Or even 1.1
render faster then 1.2? Any great amount?
--
"Chris Purdie" <[e-mail]> sent this message.
To Post a Message           : [e-mail]
Un/Subscription Requests To : [e-mail]
(DIGEST)                 or : [e-mail]
Administrative Items To     : [e-mail]