[cad-linux-dev] Re: multidimensional filesystem, today's talk
- From: phrostie <pfrostie@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: cad-linux-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 20:14:32 -0500
i know inventor can turn off and on detail as required and i think maverick
can as well although i have not read as much on it.
On Wed December 10 2003 01:43 pm, you wrote:
> One thought that pops up when reading this in the 'forest vs. trees'
> section is how Radiance allows you to have any level of complexity
> you desire within a rendering model.
>
> Most 3D rendering programs choke after a certain level of complexity,
> or in other words when you've got too many surfaces and to much
> trying to inter-relate. So, like when using Radiosoty, you've got to
> exclude whole parts of your model (like the furniture) just to get any
> result. This is because the typical radiosoty process forces the
> computer to think about everything in the model, so it puts the
> burden on you to crop and exclude what area of the model you
> wish to consider important within your rendering calculations.
>
> With Radiance, because of it's different rendering engine,
> this threshold is so much higher that typically you don't
> need to exclude any geometry from your ambient light calculations.
> This is because Radiance only takes into account what your
> current view is looking at, because it's got an efficient way
> to still understand what the ambient light is doing within
> the room without having to hold all of the room within memory
> at once. So you can leave everything in the lighting calculation
> without worry.
>
> So, by generating a better way of looking at the model,
> it's lead to no limitation in the level of detail you can have
> within that model. The only time you even have to worry
> about too many surfaces in Radiance is ironically with
> real modeled trees in exterior views. :)
>
> Another idea that's right along those same lines
> is the 'level of detail' view threshold settings within
> both AutoDesk Revit and VRML. Both allow for
> things to be simple at a distance, but then to fill
> out more as you approach them.
>
> So if a format can be derived that can only see
> 'bits' of the whole model, or allow for interaction
> with the entire model in some lightweight way,
> you might just be able to have your forest and trees.
>
> Sorry to be a pest with all of this, I'm not a programmer,
> and I truly wish I was so that I could provide more than
> just rambling verbiage and actually produce code to help
> aid this effort. I'm learning Squeak. But it's gonna be a
> while before I'm able to do much of anything...
>
>
> Another thing that's along these lines is the
> 'materials and geometry' format by the same
> guy who made Radiance. It's a plaintext format
> that's parsed by a library so that it can 'devolve'
> into simpler representations eloquently. This means
> that, for example, if your interface can't handle (or
> doesn't need to handle) NURBS, the objects will
> represent themselves as simpler objects without
> 'damaging' that NURBS data. This format might
> be more of what you're lookin' for... :)
>
> http://radsite.lbl.gov/mgf/HOME.html
> =20
Other related posts:
