On 12/05/2013 12:05 PM, Bertho Stultiens wrote: > The voxel approach is a valid one. You can reduce the data-set size by > merging voxels in a plane and volume. There are tree-algorithms to > handle such cases and there is an advantage that you only need to split, > never merge. However, using trees can be computationally (a lot) more > work. But then, it can be used for very high resolution and can be > parallelized quite well.
BTW, the splitting is usually done with the octtree approach (which was mentioned before). It can still generate a huge amount of data. If you want a block of 10" split down to 1mil (0.001"), or 4 orders of magnitude, then you need a tree-depth of 14. That would be worst case 10^12 leaf nodes, which is computationally unfeasible. Even a measly 1% fill is 10^10 leaf nodes, which no ordinary computer would want to deal with. My guess is that you could get max. ~2.5 orders of magnitude resolution for any result that should complete in the near future. -- Greetings Bertho (disclaimers are disclaimed) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sponsored by Intel(R) XDK Develop, test and display web and hybrid apps with a single code base. Download it for free now! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=111408631&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
