

Le 06/08/2019 à 23:05, Bald Eagle a écrit :
>
> Aside from the obvious userdefined vs implemented in source code,
>
> can someone define and differentiate the difference between a "mathematical
> primitive" like a
>
> sphere {0, 1}
>
> and an isosurface object such as
>
> isosurface {function { x*x + y*y + z*z  1 }} ?
>
The generic function need to be evaluated in various points along the
ray/path, to solve the root(s).
No intrinsic knowledge of the properties of the function is used.
The good side is that the evaluation is limited to a container.
The bad side is that bounding box optimisation is only a dream.
The computation of fancy position uses the provided data.
The computation of the function uses a virtual machine, which can be
nonoptimal for the native CPU.
The native sphere: we can use its properties.
The maximal number of roots (intersection with a ray) is known.
Computing all the roots for a path is simple, without intermediate
evaluations.
The computation of fancy position uses a translation to reduce the
problem to a sphere at the origin. This might have an impact on native
precision when translated back.
UVmapping might be available. (from coordinate of intersection to
uvvalues)
Post a reply to this message

