Level of Detail for Parts


Re: Level of Detail for Parts
#5
Right - to me it seems like having the substitution be hard coded is a weakness that could be overcome with a meta-command extension.

With hard coding there is a dependency between supporting apps and changes in the library. A part author cannot create new low-detail sub-parts and have them be used without every program developer changing some kind of proprietary list, possibly in code.

The stud is the obvious example of low hanging fruit for LOD optimization, but:
- This cuts both ways - what about a high-LOD variant of studs.
- What about other parts that have high vertex count and are strong candidates for low-vertex approximation (if such parts even exist)?

So essentially what I am asking is: if we were to have meta data for low-fi variants of parts, what other meta data would we need, e.g. usage guidelines or metrics.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Messages In This Thread
Level of Detail for Parts - by Ben Supnik - 2013-03-04, 2:54
Re: Level of Detail for Parts - by Ben Supnik - 2013-03-04, 14:10
Re: Level of Detail for Parts - by Ben Supnik - 2013-03-04, 16:31
Re: Level of Detail for Parts - by Ben Supnik - 2013-03-04, 21:56
Re: Level of Detail for Parts - by Tim Gould - 2013-03-04, 21:20

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)