Is this a (shadow) bug?
-
Looks right to me too.
-
Coen, I think I understand what you're asking but if the lower group isn't set to cast shadows, it isn't obstructing the light from hitting the ground plane or whatever is under it. Setting it to not cast shadows is equivalent to making it transparent to the 'sun light'.
-
Hi Coen,
Will that still be when you move the lower group? It looks almost as if from the shadows within the shadow of the upper group. Cast shadows must be turned on .
Charly
-
It's a neat trick isn't it. As I said, if the group is set to not cast shadows, it is transparent to the light source.
-
I agree with Dave, I don't see a bug. Is it possible in the real world, no. But neither is being able to allow a physical object to not receive or cast a shadow.
-
@unknownuser said:
I agree with Dave, I don't see a bug. Is it possible in the real world, no. But neither is being able to allow a physical object to not receive or cast a shadow.
You forget the cloaking device on the Romulan Bird of Prey.
Oh, wait. That's making geometry invisible by turning off layers 
-
@unknownuser said:
Guys, please have a look at this video which hopefully better illustrates the issue for me: http://coennaninck.com/shadowissue.zip
Yes, it is not realistic, but in real life you can't tell an object to not cast (or catch) shadows.
How would you like it to work then?
Do you think it should cast a "white" shadow where the lower object is obscuring the light/shadow?
Could you make an image that shows how you think it should look? -
Coen, wouldn't it be doing what you expect if the object was set to cast shadows?
-
I do understand what you are getting at. Still, I think by definition, if it cannot cast a shadow, it cannot obstruct the light and so the behavior is logical A clear piece of glass would behave nearly the same. It would receive shadows but not cast any of its own. Most glass isn't clear enough of course to cast absolutely no shadow.
-
Is this the way you think it should look then?
That's how I understand what you're explaining, but IMO that looks very wrong.
Advertisement