RE: [Algorithms] Terrain performance comparrisons

[tweety <mi...@bb...>]

I am currently writing a hunting program as a hobby. As such, there
aren't currently any animals, animations etc, only a terrain.
For it I used a Perlin function to generate it randomly and it looks
nice. Until now, I've been generating a display list and sending it all
down the pipeline. Now, I'm working to draw each frame just what's
visible (a trapezoid) at the origin point (the modelview matrix is the
identity matrix). I just use a buffer and fill in the position of the
vertexes (the trapezoid) and the height given by my pseudo-random
functions. It's faster than it was originally and it has the added
benefit to be able to extend to infinity (with the aproximations of
float/double...). What do you think of this, being more advanced in this
field?

----------------------------------
Peace and love,
Tweety
mi...@bb... - twe...@us...
YahooID: tweety_04_01


> -----Original Message-----
> From: gda...@li... 
> [mailto:gda...@li...] On 
> Behalf Of Trent Polack
> Sent: 25 iulie 2003 03:18
> To: gda...@li...
> Subject: Re: [Algorithms] Terrain performance comparrisons
> 
> 
> I'm personally in the Chunked-LOD camp myself. It's flexible,
> easy-to-implement and speedy. The only problem I can foresee with the
> algorithm is that I think using a dynamic dataset (ala 
> TreadMarks) may not
> be feasible. I haven't played around with it much myself, so 
> there's not
> much to back that statement up with other than mere 
> speculation. I think it
> would be possible to use a dynamic dataset, but it would 
> probably require a
> rather heavily modified implementation of the algorithm. This 
> is though, as
> I said, mere speculation.
> 
> As for teaching/learning the Chunked-LOD theory and 
> implementation, I tend
> to use the "stepping stone" method. Basically, I tell people 
> to learn the
> basics of Geomipmapping (the algoirithm is pretty basic by 
> nature), code a
> sample implementation, and just mess around with the code a 
> bit to see the
> pros and cons of the algorithm. Once someone has done that, 
> learning, and
> implementating for that matter, Chunked-LOD tends to be a lot easier.
> 
> Of course, it's important to note that Geomipmapping is 
> simply not a real
> competitor for "best modern terrain algorithm", simply 
> because it lacks a
> lot of the optimizations that Chunked-LOD does. I personally consider
> Chunked-LOD an evolution of Geomipmapping. They're very 
> similar in many
> ways, but the former takes many more steps that increase the overall
> performance of an implementation.
> 
> However, with all that said, Lucas definately brings up some 
> very valid
> points. The ROAM 2.0 algorithm, from what I've seen, produces really
> incredible results. It's flexible, speedy, and less 
> memory-intensive than
> Chunked-LOD; not to mention the fact that the scalability of an
> implementation is amazing. On one of my simple 
> implementations, I can zoom
> from "way out" in 3D space to a "nose-to-the-ground" view 
> without so much as
> a studder in performance. Though, on the whole, I think ROAM 
> 2.0 is a much
> more complex (code-wise) system than Chunked-LOD, and it 
> really requires you
> to do your homework.
> 
> Both of these algorithms produce top-notch results. In the 
> end, however, it
> really depends on which of the two you feel best suits your 
> game. *shrug*
> ---
> Trent Polack
> tr...@po...
> www.polycat.net
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including
> Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now.
> Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET.
> http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet
> _072303_01/01
> _______________________________________________
> GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
> GDA...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list
> Archives:
> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=6188
>