Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
> On 21.06.10 18:01, Warp wrote:
> >>>     Given that meshes which approximate the same shape as a complex CSG
> >>> composed of other primitves sometimes renders faster than that CSG object,
> >>> I don't see how an isosurface would be even faster than that. On the
> >>> contrary, an isosurface with the same shape as the complex CSG most probably
> >>> would render at least an order of magnitude slower than the original CSG
> >>> object.
> >
> >> Not sure where you read isosurfaces are faster than CSG. Oh well :-(
> >
> >    "the probable assumption that a high quality mesh would be faster to
> > generate and then render compared to a native object (i.e. an isosurface)
> > is incorrect."
> >
> >    If you claim that rendering an isosurface is faster than generating a
> > mesh from it and then rendering it, you are also implying that rendering
> > an isosurface is faster than rendering a (complex) CSG because there are
> > cases where meshes are faster to render than CSG. If meshes are faster than
> > CSG and isosurfaces are faster than meshes, it logically follows that
> > isosurfaces are faster than CSG.

> A very interesting conjecture. However, I have a real life, so you will have 
> to discuss your conjecture with someone else.

  I wonder if this will be a permanent pattern from this time forward:
Every time you make a post and I respond to it, you see me attacking you,
regardless of what my intentions truly are and what the topic in question
is, and when I try to explain myself, you invariable resort to some kind
of meta-discussion instead of discussing about the relevant subject at hand.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message