Tim Nikias wrote:
>>   The height_field primitive uses optimized code which renders faster
>> than an equivalent mesh (at least in theory; I have never tested this
>> in practice).
> 
> It should? I'll have to research on that, might prove invaluable for one
> or the other render. :-)

  Note, however, that there's evidence that heightfields don't always
render correctly (perhaps precisely because of bugs in this optimized
code). "Smooth" heightfields are not always so "smooth", even though
equivalent smooth meshes are.

  Btw, another advantage of heightfields is that they, too, are
reference-counted when copied, in the same way as meshes.

Post a reply to this message