|
 |
Thanks, my render is now up to 14 minutes per 320 x 240 frame and I probably
have less than 8000 cubes so far...
I vaguely remember posting about how people had improved the superellipsoid,
hoping they'd made it as fast as a cube! Perhaps with about 40-200 triangles I
could make a sort of rounded-cube approximation.
(BTW--did you see my old reply to you re: computing volume?)
Warp wrote:
> Greg M. Johnson <gre### [at] my-dejanews com> wrote:
> : Say I want to have a solid 3D object made up of thousands of cubes.
>
> : Is the best way to do this with 12 meshes, a cube, or what?
>
> You mean 12 triangles?
>
> As far as I know the most efficient way is to create all the triangles
> into one mesh (I mean that if you want 1000 cubes you don't make a mesh
> made of 12 triangles and then copy it 1000 times, but instead you put
> all the 12*1000 triangles into one mesh).
> You will be surprised how fast this mesh renders, no matter if it has
> 12*1000 triangles or 12*1000000 triangles (well, the parsing time gets
> longer, of course, but that's not so important here; the parsing time
> gets longer anyways, no matter what method you use).
>
> If the mesh must be solid (ie. useable in CSG) you'll have to use MegaPov
> for that.
>
> : Just how worse are the superellipsoids, and how much better are the
> : improvements to them?
>
> Superellipsoids are very slow. I don't know if megapov has any
> improvements in its speed, but it's always very slow (much slower than
> a box and very much slower than a mesh if you have a lot of copies of it).
>
> --
> main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
> ):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
