RE: [Algorithms] Terrain Organization

[Tom F. <to...@mu...>]

Yes, this is basically what a quadtree culling system does. Remember - there
are two separate (but linked) considerations:

(1) culling geometry that is out of view frustum.

(2) reducing visible geometry through some sort of level-of-detail system.

The two are often (and indeed, should be) interlinked, but they are separate
thing. The first is comparatively simple - quadtree and similar hierarchial
systems do it very well. The second is harder, and the subject of many
discussions on this list.

Tom Forsyth - Muckyfoot bloke.
Whizzing and pasting and pooting through the day.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mats Lundberg [mailto:ma...@al...]
> Sent: 30 July 2000 22:00
> To: gda...@li...
> Subject: Re: [Algorithms] Terrain Organization
> 
> 
> I've also thought of something similiar to what you proposed...
> 
>  Meanwhile I am planning to split the terrain up to several 
> _hierarchical_
>  chunks (with bounding boxes) and, for each frame, I test each chunk
> against the   current viewing frustum (VF) to _recursively_ 
> determine if it
> has to be
>  submitted to the transformation and rendering pipeline.  If an
> _upper-level_   chunk is rejected, there is no need to go down to the
> _lower-level_ chunks   inside it, which can quickly reject a 
> huge amount of
> geometry.
> 
> I don't se anything wrong with it. No fancy geometry calc:s, 
> just a simple
> recursive function that goes through a quad tree. I mean, how 
> much simpler
> can you make it?? It maybe crude but hey, it works. Right?? 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
> GDA...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list
>