Peter Popov wrote:
> 
> Hello, Dan.
> 
> Great idea and thanks for sharing it!

Aww shucks that makes the 6 hours I spent worth it.  Blessed feedback.
 
> Now, for your question... you can't really tell whether it will be
> faster until you stress-test it. Put several thousands of those in a
> scene and compare the render times of each approach. Also, while one
> object may be faster, it may still be slower in CSG, so that's also
> worth a try.

Yeah I figured that would be the way to do it.  I didn't feel like doing
all that testing though.  It sounded like a lot of work.  I thought
perhaps someone might have immediate need for millions of tetrahedrons. 
Well no I didn't, but I can dream can't I?  Today I was thinking, and I
believe that it is possible to make any finite polyhedron out of
tetrahedrons.  Maybe even only one per vertex.  It's even easy to split
a tetrahedron into two tetrahedrons.  So I was thinking about making a
polyhedra modeler that treated shapes as unions of tetrahedrons.  Maybe
I will have it working 6 months from now.  Well if I can motivate myself
that well.  
 
> As of your concerns of starting a flame war, I doubt it :) It's just
> that if someone looks for examples of code, macros, scenes etc., one
> usually looks into the scene-files groups. In general, the chances of
> finding something (not just a post) are greater if it's in the right
> place (this from the guy whose view of order is "Throw everything
> here, this way the more recent stuff requires less digging." :) )
> Anyway, just a thought.

My reasoning for putting it here is that tetrahedra are fairly simple
shapes, and I thought it was more of an intellectual thing.  Plus I
hardly ever get any replies when I post in scene-files groups.  I
thought it would get looked at here.  
 
> Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
> Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
> TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg


-- 
Dan Johnson 
http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=teknotus
http://www.geocities.com/zapob

Post a reply to this message