RE: [Algorithms] Cone or 6 planes?

[Aaron D. <ri...@ho...>]

These days you're better off leaving the clipping to the hardware. Its MUCH
faster than doing it in software. You just use the frustum testing to cull
geometry thats completely out of view. The cone test is very fast so even if
you did do finer grain rejection using planes after the cone test, it may
still come out being faster.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gda...@li...
> [mailto:gda...@li...]On Behalf Of Jake
> Luck
> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2000 4:07 AM
> To: GameDev AlGore
> Subject: RE: [Algorithms] Cone or 6 planes?
>
>
>
>
> out of curiosity. What are some of the advantages in terms of using cone
> vs. frustum for object rejection? I am under the impression that you will
> still be using frustum to do clipping, no? wouldn't it make more sense to
> have an algorithm that deals with both in a single pass?
>
> Jake
>
> > > Currently, I use frustum (6 planes) for object rejection.
> > > I'm trying the cone method, but I cannot build the right cone.
> > > Has someone tried this? I mean, build a cone, insteade the 6 planes?
> > > How calculate the cone, given the FOV and resolution? And how
> > > calculate the distance from a sphere?
> > >
> > > Yes, I search my math books, but hadn't find a fast method.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
> GDA...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list
>