Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Why? Its going to cost you more memory to store 20 transforms for an IK 
> chain, and all changes needed for them, in separate arrays, than it will 
> to store 20 transforms in the object, then apply only 3-4 changes from 
> "your" array, which are needed to change the specific parts that are 
> needed.

Then store it as two arrays.

The only difference is whether one of the arrays is "in the object" 
being transformed or not.

What's the semantic difference between having an array pointer 
associated with each object to store transforms and having an array 
indexed by object whose values are arrays of transforms?

> One uses, lets say 20*5, just to pick an arbitrary number for 
> the storage needed, + 4*5*number of changes. Yours requires 20*5*number 
> of total changes you need.

You're trying to evaluate the efficiency of code that was thrown off as 
an exemplar of what I was expressing. That's rarely a productive analysis.

> Its only *equal* if every object has to have "every" 
> transform changed between frames, and thus all of them replayed into the 
> object.

And if not, then you code multiple arrays in SDL: One for the transforms 
that change, one for the transforms that don't.

Think about this before answering: What's the benefit of having one 
array of transforms assigned to every object, vs having arrays indexed 
by objects that can have arrays of transforms assigned as values?

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message