Re: MISC-d Digest V99 #106

["Wayne Morellini" <waynemm@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Wrote: sz@uc.ru

>WM> P.S. sz calculate that only 1-2 cycles are needed to render >each pixel 
>in
>WM> voxels, with *8 that much for photo realism.  I suggest that you >stick 
>with
>WM> voxels, maybe usefull for a MISC extension, or with >programmable 
>silicon a
>WM> hardware accelerator.

>Really it's not true.
Which part?  The *8 figure is for a sort of ray trace idea.

>Voxels are very uniform to process and can be
>parallelized to the bones - that's true. And time required to render
>single pixel depends only on someone's ability to parallelize and
>uniform. ;)

>Some of my recent thoughts about this thing include use of distance >to
>planes for clipping (then it really requires additions and division by
>2), use of "test results flags" which can help eliminate needless
>computation during clipping and use of quadratic or cubic >interpolation
>when calculating voxel size and screen coordinates. If you or anyone
>else are interested - well, I'll be glad to tell more.

Funny this sounds simular to the stuff I came up with.  Shortly I can 
discuss this.  I've been quiet sick this year, and was unable to look at the 
code you sent me before (I had a hard time with the commenting).  So I sat 
down and worked out the priciples of doing a voxel engine independently, 
with some of the principles you explained, and came up with some sleek 
ideas.  So I say stick with it I reckon it's a great oppertunity for 
programable silicon and misc (If you guys are listenning at Misc head 
quaters).  I was going to wait till I got my OS project going again and 
after that look at a voxel render API, but I'm not well enough for efficent 
API/Data structure design work, at the moment.


>Buy!
Sell ;)

Wayne.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com