 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> sorry, I was impersonating Andrew
I thought that was maybe the case at first, but you needed a :-)
:-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24/01/2013 09:40 AM, scott wrote:
> Seriously though, if your goal is to create a bitmap representation of
> the math curve, what difference does it make if you check every pixel in
> the image to see if it lies on the curve, or you convert the curve into
> a list of pixel-sized straight lines and then colour those pixels?
> Different maths but same result.
Sure. But nobody does that yet.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Seriously though, if your goal is to create a bitmap representation of
>> the math curve, what difference does it make if you check every pixel in
>> the image to see if it lies on the curve, or you convert the curve into
>> a list of pixel-sized straight lines and then colour those pixels?
>> Different maths but same result.
>
> Sure. But nobody does that yet.
It's pretty much there though, not like the 90's where you got triangles
100 pixels wide on supposedly curved shapes. Arguably you're never going
to get to the exact situation where every triangle is 1 pixel wide
because nobody will notice the improvement over a small amount of
approximation, and it's thus better to spend the GPU time on other effects.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25/01/2013 02:31 PM, scott wrote:
>>> Seriously though, if your goal is to create a bitmap representation of
>>> the math curve, what difference does it make if you check every pixel in
>>> the image to see if it lies on the curve, or you convert the curve into
>>> a list of pixel-sized straight lines and then colour those pixels?
>>> Different maths but same result.
>>
>> Sure. But nobody does that yet.
>
> It's pretty much there though, not like the 90's where you got triangles
> 100 pixels wide on supposedly curved shapes. Arguably you're never going
> to get to the exact situation where every triangle is 1 pixel wide
> because nobody will notice the improvement over a small amount of
> approximation, and it's thus better to spend the GPU time on other effects.
It depends. If you're doing something like hair simulation, hairs with
right-angle kinks in them are very, very noticeable. If it's something
like a distant rock face or something, you're probably not paying much
attention to it, and the rock texturing will probably hide it, mostly...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
