|
 |
"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> is the crater an isosurface or insane amount of blobs? sure difference with
> that will be slow...
Actually I am currenly using a complex series of unions, intersection, and
differences of various "primitive" shapes for each crater (especially the
larger ones which have central peaks or peak rings) Have not considered using
blobs becaues I need the crater walls to end in sharp peaks and the central
peaks to also be sharp.
After getting the bugs out of this version I a planning to do implement same
thing as an isosurface so I can have a more rugged edge to the crater walls,
rims, and central peak or peak ring while maintaining a relativley smooth
crater floor.
> hmm, if union isn't any faster than merge... have you rendered the crater alone
> to measure its render time?
Render time for a single crater (regardless of size or complexity) - SECONDS
Render time for 5000+ craters with correct overlapping and longitude and
lattitude coordinates, but no parent planet - ~2 MIN
Render time of Parent planet only with the needed "pre-excavation" for the
crater floor done using either an appropriatly sized simple sphere or cylinder
- 2 HOURS
Render time if I combine the "pre-excavated" planet and all the craters -
NEARLY A WEEK
> supposing the planet is a sphere (or a blob), if you just make a difference with
> an unevenly scaled sphere (component) and union the result with the crater, does
> it get any slower than the rendering time of the crater alone?
YES! that seems to be where the slowdown occurs.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
