In article <3EAEFE17.CED34C9A@gmx.de>,
 Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:

> Now you missed my point :-) I was not talking about meshes at all -
> isosurfaces have the strong advantage of much lower memory use (only 16
> bit per data point - this is quite unbeatable in comparison to a mesh) and
> really renders quite fast in this case.

How? You can't base an isosurface on a mesh (right now, at least), and 
what do you mean by "data point"? Are you talking about isosurface 
height fields? Height fields have their own disadvantages compared to 
mesh landscapes...no overhangs, etc. And there is a built-in primitive 
which will render much faster. Isosurfaces can avoid the overhang 
problem, but you have to add a procedural component which means the 
height information will only give general shape. The speed gains of a 
mesh or height field could be very significant.

-- 
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message