>   I have been thinking about using the marching triangles algorithm in the
> tesselation patch, as I think it gives much better results than marching
> cubes/tetrahedrons.

	I guess the problem with "marching" algorithms is the fixed step
used to sample the space; even if you try using an adaptive method, as
supersampling. While Delaunay triangulation - if possibly implemented in
a tesselation procedure - would give triangles of different sizes according
to the local complexity of the scanned object (so leading to the curvature
dependant tessellation discussed earlier). Triangles are not required to have
vertices of the same size; complexes shapes give small, numerous triangles,
while relative flat shapes give just a few large triangles. This could in
principle give good results even for simple flat objects, e.g. cubes,
including at the edges.
	I guess Christoph Hormann was actually thinking about this kind
of method, since AFAIR it starts from a point and expands in any direction.

	By the way, I don't think it would be a good idea to change the
tessellation accuracy according to distance from viewpoint, simply in
order to save memory. Tesselation can be made just once, for instance
in an animation. And that's much better for exporting (probably one of
the main purpose actually).

	- NC

Post a reply to this message