Re: Height maps

Chris Schoeneman ([email protected])
Tue, 9 May 1995 11:11:40 -0700


> 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.

But the triangular mesh is different because each vertex is given
explicitly, whereas the elevation grid implicitly gives you two
coordinates. The triangular mesh is much more flexible for this
reason but at a significant cost in space. Both would be welcome
additions.

> 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.

I like the idea. We at Lightscape would like to see a BaseColor node ala
Inventor since our radiosity solutions precalculate diffuse lighting.

Cheers,
-chris