scott wrote:
>> This puzzles me. I'm not disputing you're wrong - usually there's some 
>> option to set the number of subsamples taken - but since a GPU can 
>> *only* draw straight lines, you'd think they could just use the 
>> closed-form formulas for doing mathematically perfect AA on polygon 
>> edges. It takes about 3 float-ops. No subsamples required.
> 
> That method has problems when you are drawing triangles adjacent to each 
> other.

Like what?

> Also how does your method work with a pixel shader?

If I actually knew what a pixel shader is, I could maybe answer. :-)

>> I still find it rather hard to believe that you can take a complex 
>> shape such as the surface of a water splash and automatically 
>> tesselate it.
> 
> If you're going for physical accuracy then your simulation data will be 
> in voxels or something anyway,

Unless it's a particle method.

> so using marching cubes or similar will get you your tesselated mesh directly.

I see.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message