bob@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On Jan 4, 2:13 am, nat...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Nathan Mates) wrote:
>> In article
<785160de-8577-4950-9424-14e918870...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>
>> <b...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> I was just wondering if we're going to start seeing computer games
>>> where the primitive is points rather than triangles.
>> You can do single-pixel points just fine in DirectX right now. [I
>> assume OpenGL is similar.] However, a huge screen (e.g. 1600x1200 or
>> bigger) would need a lot of single points to be visible. There's also
>> the problem that the hardware (graphics cards) tend to sup****t
>> triangles *great* and everything else not so well. This is a "network
>> effect" (seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect)
where
>> what's sup****ted well gets a lot more sup****t, and everything else
>> gets ignored.
>>
>> I suppose the bigger question is *why* would you think that points
>> (maybe you mean spheres?) would look better?
>>
>> Nathan Mates
>> --
>> <*> Nathan Mates - personal webpagehttp://www.visi.com/~nathan/
>> # Programmer at Pandemic Studios --http://www.pandemicstudios.com/
>> # NOT speaking for Pandemic Studios. "Care not what the neighbors
>> # think. What are the facts, and to how many decimal places?" -R.A.
Heinlein
>
> Points are just easier to work with. You don't have to worry about
>
> the complexities of closing meshes and such. You could probably make
>
> a decent point model just from a 2d image of someone. Doing that
> with
>
> meshes is a hassle.
>
> Also, 3d laser scanning translates more naturally into point clouds.
>
> Plus, points are closer to how it is in the real world.
But . . . what happens if you zoom in? Either your "point" has width to
it in which case it is not a point at all, or eventually the target
becomes see through
--
LTP
:)
|
