"gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> Which of the two options would be the best overall approach...
> i) Going to the trouble of calculating the normal for every triangle?
> ii) Just using a sub-pixel triangle size?
>

The results are in:

With a mesh2 macro, and the same figure:

i) Not calculating normals, but using 130 rings & 130 segments:
6 secs parse, 6 secs render

ii) Calculating normals, using 30 rings & 30 segments:
"0" secs parse, 5 secs render.

Image quality: Case ii) is segmentally lumpy but much "smoother", of course.

Post a reply to this message