3 ms·
It's bad. One one hand it gives something more or less true in a "casual" manner but on the other it's also intermixed with complete BS. E.g. wtf specular does
by pandaman 10y ago
It's bad. One one hand it gives something more or less true in a "casual" manner but on the other it's also intermixed with complete BS. E.g. wtf specular does not depend on view direction? It's called specular for a reason.
While I have no problem with people simplifying things for introduction to laymen, I think introducing falsehoods like this will do more harm than good.
- psyc 10y agoIt's just a typo. They wrote "normal" twice instead of "camera/eye". With that one-word correction, it's Blinn-Phong.
- pandaman 10y agoIt could be a typo but how are people who is this supposed to target will know? It's not like somebody who was just given a bizarre explanation for dot product (and Lambert's lighting model along with that) will see through it.