Jump to content
  • Advertisement


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

126 Neutral

About pinknation

  • Rank
  1. So, I have a picture here that will help a lot with my question: excuse the poor drawing if possible, anyways, the point here is that if I have a convex hull such as in Diagram 1, the teapot, and I slice on on that red line, from the top-down view, the slice points(otherwise the inverse of the plane) will look like that in 2D. is there any good triangulation algorithms which can a) support holes, and b) support edges/points seperated from each other creating sub polygons, but all within the same triangulation sweep; this is important, and any information would be great, I am capable of learning, but looking for something more open-source that i can try and understand better then a PDF, but anything will do
  2. To my above post which I cannot edit, I ment to say convert the 2D layers to radial, oh geeze I've been confusing those two a lot lately;
  3. try thinking more outside the box guys, unlimited detail isn't something that Bruce Dell found in some PDF file on rendering unlimited detail. He invented it, basically going against all other current techniques for rendering point data; My gist of all this, is that the entire world(not just individual models and objects in the world), are sliced into 2D layers, and converged into cartesian coordinates; these coordinates are then during run-time almost magically reverse transformed to their proper screen-space coordinates after already being sorted through some unknown function; Don't like that approach? We'll octree's have not been able to yeild those results in real-time either; So, lets try and take down the number of cycles, and complicated maths and leave it more simple, that's the only way he could process that much information in such a small amount of time. Accept it and move towards that; Computational Theory; I'd also say that ray-tracing is really not the answer here as he states Thinking outside the box might be an example of this based on the cartesian idea, that is the screen-space may not be nothing more then some normals right, and just like when righting a script to do reflection, and refraction, you're no more moving a few pixels in the direction of that normal. So lets transform our cartesian coordinates with some dot product to our screen-space normal; what might happen then? Magical reverse transformation of the exact "atom" we need for that point on the screen. Without a lot of cycles; Or math. This guy's been developing this thing for a long time, and deserves more respect for not having stuck to standards, and simply accepting the PDF's or Tutorials they find on GameDev as their ultimatum. He went around and beyond, I say you stop fighting it, and embrace it; Just because he hasn't decided to populate it yet, does not mean that it isn't there. Give him time to perfect it, and make some affiliations with physics companies, who can then compute on the GPU while all graphics processing is being done on the CPU. This type of co-proccessing is what is going to make next-gen games next-gen; Be patient;
  • Advertisement

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

We are the game development community.

Whether you are an indie, hobbyist, AAA developer, or just trying to learn, GameDev.net is the place for you to learn, share, and connect with the games industry. Learn more About Us or sign up!

Sign me up!