Parsable Meta-Data for High-detail vs. Low-detail parts and primitives


Re: Parsable Meta-Data for High-detail vs. Low-detail parts and primitives
#42
Hi Guys,

Chris, if you don't like having 'implicit' ranking via the order of LOD definitions in the config file, then I think we need an explicit ranking.

In particular, the stud polygon count isn't quite good enough. For example:

- 16-gon studs with/without logos. Clearly the ones with logos represent a higher rendering load, but the stud side count is 16 for both.
- No-studs vs no-studs-and-interiors. If we wanted both levels of detail, they would both have a stud side count of 0.

I really like Santeri's tag-value proposal - it lets us flexibly add more meta data to LODs, and not every client has to care about all meta data. So...

Chris Dee Wrote:The polygon edge count would be used to sequence the entries and would describe how circular elements are coded, but wouldn't prevent other primitives existing in the same folder.

I would like to see polygon edge count be separate from sequence/LOD cost because the polygon edge count is ambiguous in some cases. With Santeri's proposal we can add another tag.

Cheers
Ben
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Messages In This Thread
Re: Parsable Meta-Data for High-detail vs. Low-detail parts and primitives - by Ben Supnik - 2013-08-21, 14:17

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)