Christoph Hormann wrote:
> 
> I just checked it out with a larger array (128x128):
> 
> 15384 objects
> 33 Mb memory use
> parse: 36 seconds
> trace: 11 seconds
> 
> compared to conventional heightfield:
> 
> 290 Kb memory use
> parse: 0 seconds
> trace: 6 seconds
> 
> it seems your construction is incredibly fast in trace, the rest is
> worse of course, but anyway it's a very interesting idea.

You're making an apples-to-oranges comparison.  A method that has
several thousand primities will of course be more memory intensive
and run slower than a method that has one primitive.  The height_field
primitive could be modified to allow this interpolation method as an
option.

> It's probably very useful if you need a perfectly smooth heightfield
> surface for example when it's reflective or when the camera is very
> near to the surface at one point.

-- 
ICQ: 46085459

Post a reply to this message