Re: [Algorithms] Terrain performance comparisons

[Lucas A. <ack...@ll...>]

Thatcher Ulrich wrote:

>On Jul 25, 2003 at 01:49 -0500, Jonathan Blow wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I'm not saying frame coherence is 100% bad, because the fact is that
>>we don't have viable non-coherent alternatives for a lot of tasks.
>>Physics is a good example.  I just think people need to look
>>carefully at their options and understand what they're doing.
>>    
>>
>
>Yeah, I agree with this last bit.  And I agree that fine-grained
>frame-coherence a la ROAM is mostly obsolete.
>  
>

Agreed, noone is advocating fine-grained approaches anymore, and 
chunk-based output is one of the things that ROAM 2.0 utilizes.  It is 
still a good underlying methodology though.  The incrimental 
optimization approach works beautifully on coarser chunks, and bumping 
the chunk resolution up is trivial.  I think the important observation 
is that on short enough intervals the view-dependant contribution to the 
refinement metric diminishes, so local view-independant chunks fit well. 
 There are more sophisticated ways to make chunk-internal geometry 
however, such as using VIPM on the chunk interiors (one of the many 
things Mark D is trying).

-Lucas