Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!icdoc!ra2 From: ra2@doc.ic.ac.uk (Roger Attrill) Newsgroups: comp.graphics Subject: Re: Linguistical question about radiosity. Message-ID: <2673@gould.doc.ic.ac.uk> Date: 19 Dec 90 21:31:16 GMT References: <1990Dec12.175732.2383@lavaca.uh.edu> <1990Dec15.163516.18001@cbnewsm.att.com> Sender: news@doc.ic.ac.uk Organization: Dept. of Computing, Imperial College, London, UK. Lines: 37 In article <1990Dec15.163516.18001@cbnewsm.att.com> recker@cbnewsm.att.com (rodney.joseph.recker) writes: >In article <1990Dec12.175732.2383@lavaca.uh.edu>, jet@karazm.math.uh.edu (J. Eric Townsend) writes: >> >> With radiosity, uh... >> "I wrote a radiositizer." "When I radiate this scene." "My radiator code >> is broken." ("You should drive a VW bug, then." :-) >> >> So, what's a good everyday verb to use for radiosity? "radiosity solver" >> is a tad long for informal use. >> >> I use "radiate", personally. "Let's radiate this scene and see what >> it looks like." has such a nice ring to it... I use radiate as well. Similarly - radiated. 'This was radiated using...' Although it's getting a little close to 'irradiated'. 'This scene was irradiated ...' Hmmm, sound dangerous. > >I usually try to avoid creating a verb from the word radiosity, instead >I say, "I ran radiosity on this...", which is stil awkward. > >Someone from Apple uses the work "cook" - "let's cook this scene", >"how long did it take to cook that", etc. But you lose the critical >"rad" element from the word... > Cook! I love it! A bad picture is one that's burnt, or too raw! All the objects and instances become ingredients, etc etc. Rog. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | Roger C. Attrill | I don't always think therefore I'm not necessarily. | | ra2@doc.ic.ac.uk | I couldn't have done better unless I did it myself. | | Imperial College | and other variations on a theme. | =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-