Martin Helm wrote: >>I've always felt motivated to write a hidden surface algorithm but hadn't >>found the time given how much work that would require. Even the syntax >>"depthorder" would be nice to deprecate, and instead simply refer to it as >>"hidden". >> > > > The problem with a general hidden surface algoritm will be (just an > assumption) the runtime complexity, it may be takes not into account such > special properties like the one mentioned above, that a triangle mesh is by > design not selfintersecting and then a general algorithm leads to an > exhaustive consumption of memory and cpu power in cases where it is not > neccessary.
Guess I have similar experience as you. Enough to know it is difficult, but not enough to not say "Never hurts to give it a try!" (see Eek! The Cat)... Seriously, I'd think that a lot can be saved by using a variant of "depthorder" as a first pass to greatly simplify things. That is, in 3D space, barring seriously undulating functions, the majority of elements will not overlap in space relative to the angle of projection. It's only the ones that overlap in depth that need the sophisticated surface intersection routine. Dan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Open Source Business Conference (OSBC), March 24-25, 2009, San Francisco, CA -OSBC tackles the biggest issue in open source: Open Sourcing the Enterprise -Strategies to boost innovation and cut costs with open source participation -Receive a $600 discount off the registration fee with the source code: SFAD http://p.sf.net/sfu/XcvMzF8H _______________________________________________ Octave-dev mailing list Octave-dev@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
