Generalized TRISTRIP DIP PrimtiveCount equation
Author
I was wondering if anyone had a formula for a generalized equation to compute the number of primitives to submit to DIP, given a vertex list, and index list only.
(IE, trilists is gives primitivecount=numInds / 3)
If, given the size of strips, we could generalize the formula to be:
NumStrips * (NumIndsInStrips +2)
Where, 2 equals the number of verts needed for degenerate tris.
BUT, if we're trying to abstract our DIP call from the higher levels, then trying to compute the generalized equation just from vert count and ind count gets pretty difficult.
I was hoping that someone out there has solved this?
FROG!
Quote:Original post by ElFrogo
I was wondering if anyone had a formula for a generalized equation to compute the number of primitives to submit to DIP, given a vertex list, and index list only.
(IE, trilists is gives primitivecount=numInds / 3)
If, given the size of strips, we could generalize the formula to be:
NumStrips * (NumIndsInStrips +2)
Where, 2 equals the number of verts needed for degenerate tris.
BUT, if we're trying to abstract our DIP call from the higher levels, then trying to compute the generalized equation just from vert count and ind count gets pretty difficult.
I was hoping that someone out there has solved this?
FROG!
I don't know if this article helps (i have not read it yet) but you can give it a try : http://wscg.zcu.cz/wscg2004/Papers_2004_Poster/P89.pdf
Wouldn't a DIP call for a triangle strip always use (number of indices - 2) for the primitive count? I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't.
Author
Well, a 4x4 terrain grid, would have 25 verts, 40 indicies, 6 degenerate indicies, 32 visible polies, and 3 degenerate polies.
giving 46 indicies, 35 polies (primitives)
46-2 = 44 != 35
For a single strip, maybe -2 would work, but when you start concantenating strips next to eachother, you have to increase the degenerate polies, which help even more to move that -2 away.
FROG!
giving 46 indicies, 35 polies (primitives)
46-2 = 44 != 35
For a single strip, maybe -2 would work, but when you start concantenating strips next to eachother, you have to increase the degenerate polies, which help even more to move that -2 away.
FROG!
However the degenerates are still primitives as far as the hardware is concerned. So the DrawIndexedPrimitive call should still be told the total primitives including any degenerate.
In a triangle strip, each vertex, after the first two, makes a new triangle primitive (even if it's degenerate).
This is assuming your are wanting to know the valid value to pass into the DIP call for number of primitives. If you want to know the number of actual non-degenerate triangles, then you'll have to calculate that yourself in each case.
In a triangle strip, each vertex, after the first two, makes a new triangle primitive (even if it's degenerate).
This is assuming your are wanting to know the valid value to pass into the DIP call for number of primitives. If you want to know the number of actual non-degenerate triangles, then you'll have to calculate that yourself in each case.
BTW, mapping out a 4x4 grid on paper into a single triangle strip I end up with 32 visible triangles, 4 degenerate triangles, and a total of 38 indices. This fix exactly into the (number of indices - 2) = number of primitives for the DIP call.
Author
where's that math coming from?
a 4x4 grid, would yield
4 strips of 8 polies a piece. (total 32 polies)
4 sets of 10 indicies a piece. (Gives 40 indicies)
3 degenerate triangles (not adding the dangler at the end of the grid)
(giving 46 indicies)
?
FROG!
a 4x4 grid, would yield
4 strips of 8 polies a piece. (total 32 polies)
4 sets of 10 indicies a piece. (Gives 40 indicies)
3 degenerate triangles (not adding the dangler at the end of the grid)
(giving 46 indicies)
?
FROG!
The larger numbers are the triangles, the smaller numbers are the indices. The smaller index numbers are inside the triangle they form (except the degenerate ones). Triangles 9, 18, 19, and 28 are degenerate.
When you make it into one strip you don't have 10 indices per row. You have 10 in row one, and 8 in each of the other 3, plus the 4 degenerates. That's 38 indices and 36 primitives (32 visible, 4 degenerate).
This is an alternate way to do the strip which more closely matches your decription. It is basically taking the 4 seperate strips and combining them without modification. However, when you do this then you have to insert some indices along with the 2 indices at the beginning of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th strips form 4 degenerate triangles each. So, triangles 9, 10, 11, 12, 21, 22, 23, 24, 32, 33, 34, and 35 are degenerate.
This one has 44 total triangles, 12 degenerate, and 46 indices. So it's still number of indices minus one equals the primitive count.
[Edited by - reltham on August 3, 2005 6:47:42 PM]
Author
Where are the indicies to create the degenerate triangles? Your diagrams don't seem to list those?
FROG!
FROG!
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
