Re: Terrain Generator design decision
- From: Matthew Jackson <msj121@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:39:46 -0700 (PDT)
Yah, definitely good points. I am writing a flight simulator, so
theoretically the height map needs to be large, but at the moment I
have decided that since I am not using "realistic" areas of the world,
I can manipulate the height map to make it affect a larger area. By
means of scaling and smoothing points. I might bite my tongue as some
"corners" in my mesh might become more visible, but I suppose I can
adapt later by adding interpolated vertices in between.
My main issue right now is how to implement a Level of Detail
algorithm and use Vertex Buffer Objects at the same time. Possible,
yet possibly annoying lol. I need to choose whether to use an element
array buffer, or a vertex buffer.... I presume I could "hardcode" the
first one with different levels of detail, or I could map and unmap
(ie: edit) the second one on the fly.... This right now comes down
more to whats easier then to efficiency/memory as both shouldn't be
too different.
Matthew
On Jul 22, 8:28 pm, "Fredo" <fr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If I can hop in here, it depends on how large you think the terrain could
possibly get. It doesn't have to get too large before breaking it into
individual grid pieces starts to make more sense. By doing this, you can
clearly limit the memory footprint of your app, which could be very
important if your terrain area is going to get large.
If you know the size of the maximum terrain area you'll have to cover, and
that fits in memory, then it's not worth the effort to break it up.
But it'll be easier to pick one over the other now than to have to change
your code later.
"Matthew Jackson" <msj...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:12fa6264-c132-449e-9c30-2d46b3bb38ee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I think the document was helpful to consider what others are
considering far ahead. I am not sure if it helped my decision;
however, I have decided to have one single height map for now as I
have simply decided to keep it simple.
Matthew
On Jul 22, 10:10 am, Matthew Jackson <msj...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I am going to try and read through all of this later today and I can
post my thoughts. Thank you so much for this link, it will be very
helpful in considering what may be more advantageous in the future
compared to now.
Matthew
On Jul 22, 12:31 am, "Jeff Higgins" <oohigg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jeff Higgins wrote:
Matthew Jackson wrote:
Hi,
I am writing a flight simulator in opnegl -- I am improving my
Terrain Generator and I am confronted with a design decision:
snip
At the moment I have one large height-map, which as the terrain gets
larger will simply become a very large image file. Or I can build a
grid of height map images....
I am unsure if one method is better then another. Any opinions as to
why one method might be better then another?
Your definition of better may favor one approach over another.
<http://www.fsinsider.com/developers/Pages/GlobalTerrain.aspx>
Thanks so much.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Terrain Generator design decision
- From: Jeff Higgins
- Re: Terrain Generator design decision
- References:
- Terrain Generator design decision
- From: Matthew Jackson
- Re: Terrain Generator design decision
- From: Jeff Higgins
- Re: Terrain Generator design decision
- From: Jeff Higgins
- Re: Terrain Generator design decision
- From: Matthew Jackson
- Re: Terrain Generator design decision
- From: Matthew Jackson
- Re: Terrain Generator design decision
- From: Fredo
- Terrain Generator design decision
- Prev by Date: how to group a set of triangles based on its original geometry model
- Next by Date: Re: Terrain Generator design decision
- Previous by thread: Re: Terrain Generator design decision
- Next by thread: Re: Terrain Generator design decision
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|