Am 03.04.2010 12:00, schrieb Lukas Winter:

> Of course there are certain problems to overcome. At the moment I'm
> trying to find these problems before I start messing with the POV-Ray
> source.
> - Memory consumption could be a problem. A mesh that's not just a thin
> shell but has depth needs about 7 times as many triangles. Solution: Buy
> more RAM ;)

You'd probably end up with less memory consumption for same level of 
detail though, so I'd not consider that a real issue.

> - Speed will never be better than that of meshes or isosurfaces. In fact
> the times needed to calculate an intersection will add up! Fortunately
> isosurface functions may become simpler because they needn't model the
> object's shape but only the details of the surface. Solution: Buy a new
> CPU ;)

I guess that it will rather speed up rendering, at least as compared to 
isosurfaces, as there containing "3D-mesh" would serve as a bounding 
structure for the isosurface.

> - There are be no graphical editors for this kind of object so we're
> still stuck with trial and error.

I guess that'll be the main obstacle, and I honestly don't think it can 
be overcome within reasonable time.

I'd rather prefer work to be invested into some "fake displacement 
mapping" (I'm thinking of a certain kind of "deluxe bump mapping", which 
wouldn't improve the outline of a mesh object, but aside from that would 
give pretty much the same results as displacement mapping for the 
surface structure otherwise), or maybe a feature to generate a much 
higher-resolution mesh from a basic mesh and a displacement map. I think 
implementation of such features would be within reasonable reach, and 
easy enough to use without the need for unconventional external tools.

Post a reply to this message