Re: Height maps

Len Wanger ([email protected])
Tue, 9 May 1995 09:26:02 -0700 (PDT)

Why not stick with more standard graphics nomenclature and call it a quadMesh.
Also, for lots of terrain people find it handier to use a triangular mesh
instead of a grid. It gives you roughly the same bandwidth savings, but the
generation and rendering of the surface is easier as you don't have to worry
about all of the vertices being co-planar.

My vote would be to add Inventor style tri-meshes in the next release.

This brings up another point. There are a number of useful features that have
been shot down in this group by people who have to get a product out of the
door. To appease these pragmatic concerns, but to also get in good features,
what do people think about trying to have a 1.1 release? I'm concerned about
having these features lumped in with the 2.0 release.

Len Wanger -- [email protected]
Interactive Simulations Inc.
http://www.intsim.com/~isigen

-----------------

On Tue, 9 May 1995, Jim Terhorst wrote:

> On May 9, 5:11pm, steve wrote:
> > Great idea - how about calling it ElevationGrid - grid
> > implies rectangular spacing, surface does not. Also, keep the field
> > names short.
> >
> > ElevationGrid {
> > fields [ SoSFLong numRow, SoSFLong numColumn,
> > SoSFFloat rowStart, SoSFFloat columnStart,
> > SoSFFloat rowDelta, SoSFFloat columnDelta, SoMFFloat elevations
> > ]
> > numRow = 0
> > numColumn=0
> > rowStart=0
> > columnStart=0
> > rowDelta=1
> > columnDelta=1
> > elevation -1
> > }
>
> Excellent suggestions. ElevationGrid is a much better name than
> GriddedSurface.
>
> jim terhorst (MountainTop::Computing) [email protected]
>
>