Hi !

  I was under the impression that a mesh object once declared
used only as much memory as the parent group would alone and
any child groups would use no more memory. I have reason to doubt
this or failed to use my mesh object correctly. I have a mesh
of 10 triangles. I declared them as a single object and used
an array to translate the declared mesh group. When the scene
rendered I had some 114,000 objects and had a memory hit of
114,000,000 bytes. What in the heck am I doing wrong ?


Example of usage (flow chart)

#declare array =
Array stuff

#declare Mesh_Objects =
Mesh Stuff

#declare Mesh_Group =
union{ 10 Mesh_Objects }

#while loop using the array
stuff to position the Mesh_Group


-- 
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote:
> 
> Hi !
> 
>   I was under the impression that a mesh object once declared
> used only as much memory as the parent group would alone and
> any child groups would use no more memory.

This isn't correct.  Each of the instances of the master mesh still
has state which must be defined.  It has spatial coordinates, orientation, scale,
texture, etc.  The only thing which is shared is the location of the points
within the mesh. But in your case, with only 10 triangles, this is relatively
a small allocation, so thousands of copies of a single mesh is still
quite resource-intensive.

Dan

Post a reply to this message

Dan Connelly wrote:
> 
> Ken wrote:
> >
> > Hi !
> >
> >   I was under the impression that a mesh object once declared
> > used only as much memory as the parent group would alone and
> > any child groups would use no more memory.
> 
> This isn't correct.  Each of the instances of the master mesh still
> has state which must be defined.  It has spatial coordinates, orientation, scale,
> texture, etc.  The only thing which is shared is the location of the points
> within the mesh. But in your case, with only 10 triangles, this is relatively
> a small allocation, so thousands of copies of a single mesh is still
> quite resource-intensive.
> 
> Dan

  I would rather have something for nothing dang it.

-- 
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message