 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3ea2c1e7@news.povray.org> , Andreas Kreisig <and### [at] gmx de>
wrote:
> Don't know how they realize this but I read an
> article about that and they rendered test scenes with an astronomic number
> of verts or triangels.
Of course, if only a faction is visible...
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3EA2C68E.E34CE2DA@gmx.de> , Christoph Hormann
<chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> Reducing the problem of generating realistic terrain display to the
> requirements of 'flight simulator like' applications (meaning low
> resolution, large area, possibly realtime display of heightfield data)
Actually, today the terrain will be down to 1 meter or better resolution for
flight simulators. But as it is created using air photographs, air radar
and satellites, it is always two dimensional data with height information.
While this does not cover 100% of the Earth surface, it covers well over
99.9%...
> does not cover this problem sufficiently. As i have mentioned elsewhere
> in this thread terrain geometry is a very good example for a problem where
> procedural geometry can clearly be superior to the classical hand made
> mesh approach because terrain geometry is very complex but can be fairly
> well described algorithmically.
Yes, artificial geometry that creates true 3d surfaces will be easier this
way, but given all the advantages of terrain stored as height field for
simulations of real terrain, it is common to combine that information with
the 3d information only as needed. Even for rendering, calculating an
artificial geometry at properly spaced point, scanline rendering will
outperform ray-tracing unless the ray-tracing algorithm handles the terrain
as a special case.
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3ea260f1@news.povray.org>,
"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
> So, as you can see (if you managed to read on to here), if the scene
> complexity rises, ray-tracing gets more economical, even for things like
> triangle meshes.
Scanline rendering has some advantages though. For one, the entire scene
doesn't have to exist at the same time: for example, the renderer could
draw each blade of grass in a lawn as it is generated, instead of
creating a mesh in RAM. Raytracing, being image-to-screen instead of
world-to-screen, can't do this...at least not as efficiently. The blades
of grass would have to be regenerated for every ray tested. A smart
bounding scheme could greatly reduce the number of blades to generate
and test, but it is still a huge amount of work.
When you require lots of geometry and realistic lighting, the situation
is quite a bit different...there are many cases where this trick will
just not work. For realism, you really can't get much better than a pure
raytracer.
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christopher James Huff wrote:
> When you require lots of geometry and realistic lighting, the situation
> is quite a bit different...there are many cases where this trick will
> just not work. For realism, you really can't get much better than a pure
> raytracer.
A pure raytracer with GI or another type of indirect lightning.
--
http://www.render-zone.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3ea3cfe9@news.povray.org>,
Andreas Kreisig <and### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> > When you require lots of geometry and realistic lighting, the situation
> > is quite a bit different...there are many cases where this trick will
> > just not work. For realism, you really can't get much better than a pure
> > raytracer.
>
> A pure raytracer with GI or another type of indirect lightning.
GI can be done with pure raytracing.
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
