Re: [Algorithms] Terrain performance comparrisons

[De B. <be...@ii...>]

Anyone know of a paper where a number of terrain algorithms are compared
objectively in terms of speed/quality? Most of the time I see a paper say on
an extension to an algorithm and they state how much extra fps the extension
had on the old algorithm. Quality isn't usually even measured. But is there
any papers dedicated just to "comparing" terrain algorithms as objectively
as possible? Although opinions of "which algorithms are best" would be
useful I am really looking for papers with objective measurements (opinions
seem to vary way too much).

Here is the old original msg from 2000 if you don't remember it:

>Concerning the speed of terrain LOD algorithms: 

>If i made performance claims on my site, people would certainly complain
that the results are entire based on context (type of >dataset, amount of
camera motion) and that their implementation is really fast if i had only
tested it their way :-) 

>In fact, it's even harder than that to make meaningful comparisons, since
some algorithms (e.g. LK, TV) enforce a global error >metric, while others
(ROAM, SM) enforce a polygon count target. The first kind will have
framerates that will vary widely, while >the second will produce relatively
stable performance. 

>A lot of the discussion on the Algorithms list has been about how many
triangles/second each implementation gets through the >rendering pipeline,
which seems to me a rather silly metric - it's fps at a level of perceived
quality, NOT raw throughput, that >is the value of a LOD algorithm. 
>-Ben 
>http://vterrain.org/ 

-Ryan De Boer