Re: [Algorithms] ROAM

[Johan H. <jh...@mw...>]

> > The first publication on roam was horribly slow
>
> Well a publication is just words, surely it was not slow, except it was
hard
> to read :)
> If you mean the first full ROAM implementations, yes they there were
> reportedly generally slow by those who did them.

Very funny (I actually laughed a lot)
No, I mean the first publication that I read on ROAM that also stated CPU
time to compute. This was in the order of 25ms per frame on a  PIII
computer. The point is that there are algorithms out there that runs at
about 0.4ms per frame (with about 7000 triangles in the list), and I was
wondering whether the original full ROAM was so horribly slow and badly
implimented, and whether someone has managed an implimentation that will run
in less than 1ms on a PIII,
or whether it is a sub optimal approach to start off with and will never run
this fast?

These times are obviously approximate, and refers only to the time spent in
the algorithm, not in rendering any of the triangles generated.

Johan Hammes