I am desperately in need of clarification here. From a purely physics-based perspective, when light reflects on (not “in”) an object with some transmission (where full transmission isn’t visible beyond refraction) it reflects in the same manner that it reflects on any surface (“opaque”), When it doesn’t, it doesn’t.
How is this latent (scalar?) value of transmission accessible, let alone useful, to the point that distorting straightforward results is deemed essential? Why on earth would it be doing anything beyond being a factor in solving a ray [properly]?
I’m not a computer graphics science major, nor should someone have to be to use this feature. But I really don’t think that’s the issue. What exactly is your case (or the case of the industry establishment) for the benefit of this type of rendering? You can even use uber-fancy terminology on me, but why on earth would anyone want anything other than “straight alpha” i,e. alpha the only way it’s ever been, a grayscale value determining opacity.
I’m leaning towards my original option of assessment (with significant resentment, but not at you specifically–thank you again btw) …that this is a “a trade secret nack that people give you the runaround on” …
I understand that the controls on the Space Shuttle were split extensively into their many operations giving the crew manual flexibility. I don’t see the flexibility here, only impediment.