You don't need to restrict it to indexed geometry types, but yes, this can work. Many particle systems that I have seen used this very approach.
Doug. >Subject: Re: [JAVA3D] A basic doubt >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Delivered-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Delivered-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Hi Chien and Doug: > >Just a wild idea.... > >Is it not possible to string several (hundreds of) spheres all in >one IndexedTriangleStripArray, and put several of these (300 is the >magic number is it ?) under one Shape3D and all of them coordinate >transformed to their appropriate locations so that the need for >TransformGroups can be obviated. If picking individual spheres is >not a concern how would this compare with TransformGroup + Shape3D >+ shared Geometry. Wish I knew how much memory a Shape3D and >TransformGroup (w/ embedded Transform3D) would consume. > >If the TransformGroup + Shape3D memory cost is not that expensive, >this approach would be quite ludicrous. > >Regards > >Raj > >=========================================================================== >To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body >of the message "signoff JAVA3D-INTEREST". For general help, send email to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help". =========================================================================== To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "signoff JAVA3D-INTEREST". For general help, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
