Wrong pseudocode in BRDF reference implementation about gltf HOT 2 CLOSED

Thanks for finding this and the great writeup @lisyarus! I think @bsdorra is going to take a swing at a fix that includes the updates to other extensions mentioned by @proog128. We'd love to hear feedback on the fix once the PR goes online.

from gltf.

This is indeed a bug in the pseudocode which has been there for a very long time, thanks for your detailed report and derivations. Your proposal looks good, it's also more readable than the old version. However, it will change the look of the material, which might have to be discussed @emackey. This particular code snippet in the "new" Appendix B is identical to the one in the "old" Appendix B (before the rewrite), I copied this bug without noticing. Because it's only in the non-normative part, I suppose the change is fine. Might be a good idea to also check the sample viewer, it might also be affected.

I'd be happy to make a pull request myself (in case I'm not misunderstanding things, of course!).

Since you change the naming of some terms, it's required to adapt the extension too. I think KHR_materials_specular, _ior, _clearcoat, and maybe also _iridescence have to be updated.

from gltf.