>>> I have a 3D fractal, represented as a cubic array of float values
>>> giving a brightness at each point. I'm currently working with a
>>> 200x200x200 array.
>>>
>> You can achieve fairly decent results using textured quads or
>> triangles instead of points. by doing this you can get good looking
>> clouds using 32x16x32 quads, and it can be very fast. There is a paper
>> on this here: http://www.markmark.net/clouds/RTCRPubs.html
>>
>
>Really? Despite quadrupling the amount of data I'm sending to the card?
>Hmm, I'll give it a go, see what happens.
>
Actually, I don't think this is the right technique for what you're trying to do.
The technique works very well for a large number of points distributed over
great distances (relative to the viewer), because in that case most of the
particles' positions vary slowly in screen space as the view changes and they
don't need to be updated as frequently. If you want to rapidly rotate your object
you'll need to update the imposter for it every frame, which is no better (actually
worse) than how you're drawing it now.
I would expect your bottleneck is related to all that geometry (200^3 vertices); if
the model is static you might be better off uploading it as a 3D texture and
using some kind of volume rendering.
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Mac-opengl mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/mac-opengl/email@hidden
This email sent to email@hidden
