Re: [Algorithms] Terrain performance comparrisons

[Thatcher U. <tu...@tu...>]

On Jul 25, 2003 at 02:41 -0700, Lucas Ackerman wrote:
> 
> [...] and as such the biggest failings of ROAM
> remain social in nature, not technical.

Some (hopefully helpful) observations:

1. My guess is that after static model-swapping, ROAM is probably the
   most influential LOD method in the history of game development.  As
   far as I can tell, "ROAM" is the first word on the average game
   programmers' lips when asked about terrain.  Total guess on my
   part; I don't have data or anything.  So don't fret too much over
   perceived failings.

2. In my opinion, the *real* reasons people don't always use LOD (of
   whatever flavor) are based on practical engineering economics, not
   anything social or purely technical.  The fact is that except for a
   few game genres, like flight sims, there are way more important
   things on the agenda than scalable LOD.

   Take shading.  Maybe 50% of the traffic on this list concerns
   shading techniques.  And that's because quality of shading has huge
   leverage over the player experience, and is still heavily
   resource-constrained.  Whereas LOD generally isn't making or
   breaking anybody's game nowadays, due to faster hardware.  So
   anything (e.g. LOD) that takes developer time and makes shading
   more complicated has to have an extra big payoff, over and above
   any intrinsic benefit.

3. IMO, that does not in the slightest take away from the value of
   researching things like ROAM.  A technique doesn't have to be
   ubiquitous in every application to be successful.  And if your real
   goal is to make ubiquitous algorithms, then you need to embrace
   honest critiques from practictioners, or else you'll just be
   frustrated.

-- 
Thatcher Ulrich
http://tulrich.com