|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> How many triangles can you find in the attached image?
If this was a Project Euler problem it would state the answer, and then show
a horrendously complex shape and ask for how many triangles were in that
one, and it would probably be a 9 digit number or something :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> If this was a Project Euler problem it would state the answer, and then
> show a horrendously complex shape and ask for how many triangles were in
> that one, and it would probably be a 9 digit number or something :-)
What, like this?
http://tinyurl.com/y9h6cjz
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> If this was a Project Euler problem it would state the answer, and then
>> show a horrendously complex shape and ask for how many triangles were in
>> that one, and it would probably be a 9 digit number or something :-)
>
> What, like this?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y9h6cjz
Not quite what I had in mind, but LOLs nonetheless :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> What, like this?
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/y9h6cjz
>
> Not quite what I had in mind, but LOLs nonetheless :-)
There's A LOT of triangles there, I assure you. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Not quite what I had in mind, but LOLs nonetheless :-)
>
> There's A LOT of triangles there, I assure you. ;-)
To me it looks like a few thousand at most in that picture, not a
particularly detailed or smoothed model, and you're only seeing part of it.
(Man the triangles around her neck and clothes are *huge*)
Here are 7.3 million triangles:
http://tinyurl.com/yav476n
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> There's A LOT of triangles there, I assure you. ;-)
>
> To me it looks like a few thousand at most
Which I would think qualifies as "a lot" in anyone's book.
> not a
> particularly detailed or smoothed model, and you're only seeing part of
> it.
It all looks so smooth and curvey...
...until you walk past a light source. Ah, the wonders of per-polygon
lighting calculations. :-P
> (Man the triangles around her neck and clothes are *huge*)
So is her bust. :-P
> Here are 7.3 million triangles:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yav476n
I don't even want to *know* how much disk space that eats, do I? (Nor
how long it took some poor soul to manually place 7.3 million triangles
by hand...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> ...until you walk past a light source. Ah, the wonders of per-polygon
> lighting calculations. :-P
I thought all games used per-pixel lighting now?
> I don't even want to *know* how much disk space that eats, do I?
I fired up Blender and applied sub-surface to the Monkey mesh to 6 levels
(it seems that's the maximum allowed). That gave me 2 million "faces" (4
million triangles I assume). I made a copy of it, so there were 8 million
triangles being displayed. Blender told me it was taking up 372 MB and I
could still navigate around the scene in real-time (maybe around 5 fps).
It seems the best nVidia cards (eg GTX 295) have a graphics bandwidth of
almost 20x what I have and 4x as much RAM, so I suspect you'd be able to
edit and work on well over 20 million triangles with no problem on a
high-spec machine.
> (Nor how long it took some poor soul to manually place 7.3 million
> triangles by hand...)
LOL, for the 5325th time, nobody manually places the triangles by hand, they
are calculated automatically by the computer using a subdivision algorithm.
Here is an example of the base mesh that was actually drawn by hand:
http://tinyurl.com/yavvpgx
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> ...until you walk past a light source. Ah, the wonders of per-polygon
>> lighting calculations. :-P
>
> I thought all games used per-pixel lighting now?
Apparently HL2 doesn't. (They've upgraded the Source engine several
times since then, so maybe it does now. I doubt it.)
>> I don't even want to *know* how much disk space that eats, do I?
>
> Blender told me it was taking up 372 MB
Ouch. That's a hell of a lot of space for one single model. God only
knows what an entire scene from something like Cars takes...
> and I could still navigate around the scene in real-time
> (maybe around 5 fps).
>
> It seems the best nVidia cards (eg GTX 295) have a graphics bandwidth of
> almost 20x what I have and 4x as much RAM, so I suspect you'd be able to
> edit and work on well over 20 million triangles with no problem on a
> high-spec machine.
I have a GTX 280. It tells me it has several hundred cores. This makes
me very happy. (It does not, however, make Crysis run smoothly...)
>> (Nor how long it took some poor soul to manually place 7.3 million
>> triangles by hand...)
>
> LOL, for the 5325th time, nobody manually places the triangles by hand,
> they are calculated automatically by the computer using a subdivision
> algorithm. Here is an example of the base mesh that was actually drawn
> by hand:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yavvpgx
That still looks impossibly complex to draw by hand.
Look at the belt. It's circular. Ever tried drawing a circle using
pencil and paper? (Hint: It's physically impossible.) Sure, you can move
the verticies around after you've drawn them. But it would still be
hopelessly hard to arrange 80 points into a near-perfect curve like
that. And that's just making the outline; next you have to somehow model
the height of the belt, not to mention its thickness. Impossibility upon
impossibility.
Also... no triangles. Only quadrilaterals, as far as I can tell.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Look at the belt. It's circular. Ever tried drawing a circle using
> pencil and paper? (Hint: It's physically impossible.) Sure, you can move
> the verticies around after you've drawn them. But it would still be
> hopelessly hard to arrange 80 points into a near-perfect curve like
> that. And that's just making the outline; next you have to somehow model
> the height of the belt, not to mention its thickness. Impossibility upon
> impossibility.
I like how you try to demonstrate how something we see a picture of is
in fact impossible to do :-)
--
Vincent
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier wrote:
> I like how you try to demonstrate how something we see a picture of is
> in fact impossible to do :-)
Heh, well, it's impossibly by drawing polygon edges one at a time. Maybe
there's some other way of doing this which is, in fact, possible?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |