From: Curtis L. O. <cu...@fl...> - 2001-06-28 11:58:31
|
David Findlay writes: > > Sounds perfectly reasonable in theory, but the trick will be to figure > > out a way to calculate what is completely obscured (by the building > > for instance) in a way that takes less time in the average case than > > just drawing everything in the view frustum. > > The indoor first person shooters often use some funky space > > partitioning scheme which I've never really investigated myself > > because it doesn't help you much in outdoor environments. Especially > > on the earlier games, I believe they needed to do this becuase they > > wanted to run on non-3d hardware without a Z-buffer, so this was their > > hidden surface removal scheme. But like I said, I've never really > > investigated their techniques so I could be way off on all of this. > > From my investigations, occlusion culling is several millions times less > complex than LOD. And it should provide preformance gains when we have > beautiful airport terminals like those in Airport 2000 volumes 1 and 2. LOD may be an overloaded term and causing some confusing here. As I understand it Level Of Detail refers to dropping to a lower polygon count version of a model based on distance from the viewer. This is easy and support for this is already in plib and has been for years. This is what people mean when they talk about LOD. If you are referring to something like ROAM, perhaps you could call it something like "continuous LOD" which is a completely different animal. Curt. -- Curtis Olson Human Factors Research Lab FlightGear Project Twin Cities cu...@hf... cu...@fl... Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org |