Re: MISC-d Digest V99 #106
- To: MISC
- Subject: Re: MISC-d Digest V99 #106
- From: "Wayne Morellini" <waynemm@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 12:28:20 EST
Wrote: sz@uc.ru
>WM> P.S. sz calculate that only 1-2 cycles are needed to render >each pixel
>in
>WM> voxels, with *8 that much for photo realism. I suggest that you >stick
>with
>WM> voxels, maybe usefull for a MISC extension, or with >programmable
>silicon a
>WM> hardware accelerator.
>Really it's not true.
Which part? The *8 figure is for a sort of ray trace idea.
>Voxels are very uniform to process and can be
>parallelized to the bones - that's true. And time required to render
>single pixel depends only on someone's ability to parallelize and
>uniform. ;)
>Some of my recent thoughts about this thing include use of distance >to
>planes for clipping (then it really requires additions and division by
>2), use of "test results flags" which can help eliminate needless
>computation during clipping and use of quadratic or cubic >interpolation
>when calculating voxel size and screen coordinates. If you or anyone
>else are interested - well, I'll be glad to tell more.
Funny this sounds simular to the stuff I came up with. Shortly I can
discuss this. I've been quiet sick this year, and was unable to look at the
code you sent me before (I had a hard time with the commenting). So I sat
down and worked out the priciples of doing a voxel engine independently,
with some of the principles you explained, and came up with some sleek
ideas. So I say stick with it I reckon it's a great oppertunity for
programable silicon and misc (If you guys are listenning at Misc head
quaters). I was going to wait till I got my OS project going again and
after that look at a voxel render API, but I'm not well enough for efficent
API/Data structure design work, at the moment.
>Buy!
Sell ;)
Wayne.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com