Subject:
|
Re: Glass... to BFC or not to BFC?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Mon, 25 Nov 2002 21:06:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
436 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Tony Hafner writes:
> When authoring "glass" parts, should I include BFC statements?
>
> It seems like we wouldn't want to cull because all surfaces should be
> visible from any direction. On the other hand, BFC is a performance
> optimization and transparent surfaces are generally a bigger perf hit than
> other surfaces.
They require a different approach to optimization - visibility culling, not
backface culling.
You're right in thinking they should not be BFC. The exception I think might
be a full box - which gets composited twice in a polygon system like OpenGL,
making it extra dark like two pieces of colored film - but that's some of
the appeal, that you can see it's two polygons thick in places.
A volumetric renderer would want to treat the box as a transparent volume.
Whole nuther problem.
-Erik
--
Har du mig hår igen? (Muminröster)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Glass... to BFC or not to BFC?
|
| (...) Right. For some renderers. Basically, in standard LDraw renderers, the backside surfaces can still be culled, because multiple layers of transparent surfaces look the same as a single layer. In renderers that produce darker/more opaque areas (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Glass... to BFC or not to BFC?
|
| When authoring "glass" parts, should I include BFC statements? It seems like we wouldn't want to cull because all surfaces should be visible from any direction. On the other hand, BFC is a performance optimization and transparent surfaces are (...) (22 years ago, 25-Nov-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
