On 16. Jan 2008, at 5:08, Gordon_Erlebacher wrote: > Hi Stefan, > > Here is another idea, suggested by Bruno. We no longer see the need > for k-d > tree partitionning. Since the data is on every computer, and since > the ply file > probably has a list of triangles (specified by indices), and a list > of vertices, > why can you simply say that pipe 1 processes the first x percent, > pipe 2 processes > the next y percent, etc. Our only explanation is that you want the > user to see > nice colored regions for display purposes. But for visualization > purposes, > spatial coherence on each individual channel is not important. > > Any comments?
The purpose of the spatial data structure is to allow efficient view frustum culling, in particular for 2D (sort-first) compounds. It will also allow more efficient DB (sort-last) recomposition once the ROI interface is implemented. The ROI interface will allow Channel::frameDraw to specify a screen-space region of interest. Only this region is the read back and assembled. Visualizing a triangle soup would be another, worthwhile example program. 2D compounds would scale much less, DB would scale almost the same in the current Eq version. The performance and scalability difference between the two programs would be interesting to benchmark. Cheers, Stefan. _______________________________________________ eq-dev mailing list [email protected] https://in-zueri.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/eq-dev http://www.equalizergraphics.com
