Hi Philippe,
That's correct! Implicit in the proposal is that an LOD set could target for 'overriding' _any_ of:
- A part
- A sub-part
- A primitive.
In the original LOD discussion, Chris Dee commented in the context of octa-studs that he was "not (yet) convinced" about the need for this much substitution flexibility.
I think there is a strong case for part-overriding for such a low level of detail - my initial attempt at this indicated that we could get lower vertex counts at the part level tan by changing primitives by a pretty significant margin.
(From a theoretical standpoint, overriding parts and not primitives is needed when the LOD reduction in quality requires -merging- primitives into a single, simpler shape.)
I haven't specifically hit a sub-part case, but it seems odd to me to set up an overriding scheme that can override the primitive and part level and not the sub-part level.
That's correct! Implicit in the proposal is that an LOD set could target for 'overriding' _any_ of:
- A part
- A sub-part
- A primitive.
In the original LOD discussion, Chris Dee commented in the context of octa-studs that he was "not (yet) convinced" about the need for this much substitution flexibility.
I think there is a strong case for part-overriding for such a low level of detail - my initial attempt at this indicated that we could get lower vertex counts at the part level tan by changing primitives by a pretty significant margin.
(From a theoretical standpoint, overriding parts and not primitives is needed when the LOD reduction in quality requires -merging- primitives into a single, simpler shape.)
I haven't specifically hit a sub-part case, but it seems odd to me to set up an overriding scheme that can override the primitive and part level and not the sub-part level.