Re: ElavationGrid (was: Height maps)

Jan Hardenbergh ([email protected])
Tue, 09 May 95 15:31:00 E

> On May 9, 5:11pm, steve wrote:
> jim terhorst (MountainTop::Computing) [email protected]
> > 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
> > elevations -1

Just to make sure I understand this. It is like a quadralateral mesh in
which
all of the quads are the same size rectangle and you just supply an array of
scalar height values, right? If placed in object space, it would start at
x = rowStart, y = yStart, z = elevations[0] and extend in the positive X & Y
directions.

Texture Binding would be to the elevation points.

It is certainly a worthy idea. I think it is similar to the mesh proposal
made by ??? - The question is, how many primitives is the right number (not
42)

Almost everyone has mentioned a VRML 1.1. Mark hoped to have a 1.1 spec
available in June/July (From the VRML Equinox/Keynote posting 15-APR-95)

Let's see 1.0 to bed, then wonder whither to wander -Jan